ASNTS_D_14_2006_21.05.07

 

 

 

ANONYMISED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

 

 

 

Reference:              d/14/2006

 

Gender:                   Male

 

Age:                        9

 

Type of Reference: Content of CSP

 

 

 

1. Reference

 

The mother (“the appellant”) lodged a reference in December 2006 under section 18 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 (“the Act”) on the basis that she disagreed with the information in the co-ordinated support plan (“the CSP”) prepared by the authority for her son (“the child”).

 

 

2. Decision of the Tribunal

 

The Tribunal requires the authority to make amendment of the information contained in the CSP for the child and to make such amendment within four weeks of the date of this written decision all in terms of section 19 (4) (b) of the Act.

 

The Tribunal considers it appropriate that the authority make amendments to the CSP to:

 

1.       include reference to other planning documents. Without prejudice to the foregoing generality, the Tribunal consider it appropriate to include reference to the IEP, the School Care Plan, the Respite Care Plan and the Manual Handling Pupil Profile;

 

2.       include an additional sentence in the section headed “Factors Giving Rise to Additional Support Needs” as follows:

         

          “the child has difficulties with feeding.”

 

3.       in the section headed “Learning Plan”, in the subsection headed “Educational Objectives”:

 

1. amend the first point under the heading “Understanding and Relating to the Environment” to read:

“the child  will have access to appropriate technology to help develop his visual and gross motor skills.”

2. include a new Educational Objective as a second point under the heading “Personal and Social Development” as follows:

“the child will improve his eating and drinking skills.”

          iii)       amend the name of the section headed “MOVE” to read: “Movement.”

 

4.       in the subsection headed “Additional Support Required”, re-write the section in its entirety having regard to:

 

          i)        teaching and staffing arrangements;

ii)        descriptions of equipment e.g. computer packages with a description of how they will assist with meeting objectives for the child without naming individual computer packages;

3. the richness of the information in the CSP Planning Template being transferred to the CSP;
4. approaches to learning and teaching and the context in which these will be carried out;
5. quantification of the Additional Support Required with reference, if required, to the examples in paragraph 55 of the Code of Practice on page 64;
6. consultation between agencies being included in Additional Support Required and not in Persons Providing the Additional Support, said consultation being quantified;
7. manual handling arrangements for the child;

 

And specifically,

 

8. include Social Work input to the home and the provision of respite in both Additional Support Required boxes relating to Communication;
9. include reference to the nature of additional support required from the Specialist teacher in the second Additional Support Required box relating to Understanding and Relating to the Environment;
10. include Social Work input to the home and the provision of respite in the second Additional Support required box relating to Understanding and Relating to the Environment;
11. include Social Work input to the home and the provision of respite in the Additional Support Required box for the new Educational Objective relating to Personal and Social Development;
12. include the MOVE programme in the three Additional Support Required boxes relating to Movement.

 

5.       In the subsection headed “Persons Providing the Additional Support”, re-write the section in its entirety having regard to:

 

1. the need for the posts to link directly to the Additional Support Required;
2. the need for reference to be specific to posts of persons and not to teams;
3. where there is a shared responsibility, the need for detailing of all posts who share the responsibility;
4. the need to refer to Social Work Services where the Tribunal has decided it is appropriate to include reference to Social Work input to the home;
5. the need to refer to the respite provider where the tribunal has decided it is appropriate to include reference to respite;
6. inclusion of the Orthotist and Manual handling Consultant in the Persons Providing the Additional Support boxes relating to Movement;
7. the need for consistency in the description of the post e.g. class teacher throughout or PT Primary throughout.

 

 

3. Preliminary Matters

 

A preliminary hearing in this reference was held in February 2007 where it was confirmed that the appellant did not intend to lead witnesses in support of her case. The authority confirmed that they intended to lead the evidence of two witnesses. Both parties confirmed that the reference could, in their view, be resolved in one day.

 

One late item of evidence was produced on the morning of the Tribunal hearing. The authority sought permission to lodge the guidance issued by the Scottish Executive in respect of The Requirements for Teachers (Scotland) Regulations 2005. That said guidance was issued by the Scottish Executive in January 2007 although the guidance itself is undated. As the guidance related to regulations already produced on behalf of the appellant, no objection was taken to the late evidence and the Tribunal allowed it to be received.

 

4. Summary of Evidence

 

The Tribunal considered a substantial bundle of evidence containing, amongst other documents;

 

1. Appellant’s statement;
2. Authority Case statement;
3. Report by a Consultant Ophthalmologist dated October 2006;
4. Record of Needs in respect of the child dated October 2003;
5. Letter from Speech and Language Therapist dated August 2006;
6. Section 23 Children with Disabilities Assessment dated September 2006;
7. Report by Consultant Community Paediatrician dated November 2006;
8. Certificate of Registration as blind in terms of the National Assistance Act 1948 in respect of the child dated February 2004;
1. School Nursing Report dated March 2006;
10. Review of Planned Respite Care Arrangements and Care Plan dated August 2006;
11. Reports by Consultant Ophthalmologist both dated December 2006;
50. Manual Handling Pupil Profile in respect of the child;
1000. The Requirement for Teachers (Scotland) Regulations 2005; and
14. Report by HM Inspectors of Education on the child’s school, dated December 2006.

 

In addition, the Tribunal heard the oral evidence from the witnesses who attended, heard from the appellant directly and heard the submissions from the appellant’s representative and the authority representative.

 

 

 

5. Findings in Fact:

 

1.       The child is nine years old, being born in November 1997. He resides with his mother. He is an only child.

 

2.       The child’s sole carer is his mother. Caring for the child at home is difficult for the appellant. She obtained a grant and had her home extended to accommodate a bedroom for the child and a wet room shower room. Track hoisting has been fitted to these areas. The child has a specialised bed.

 

3.       The child’s parents are divorced. The child’s father has contact with him for approximately two hours each fortnight.

 

4.       The child has complex and multiple needs and is dependent for all activities of daily living. He has quadriplegic cerebral palsy and global developmental delay. He has very limited or no control of his movements and cannot sit or walk independently. He requires a wheelchair and specialised seating, standing frame and walker. He suffers from epilepsy. He is registered blind. He has a cerebral visual impairment. He has very limited functional vision. No form of direct medical treatment to improve the child’s vision is possible.

 

5.       The child has difficulties with eating and drinking. He requires consistency in approaches to feeding and drinking. He requires physical support for eating and drinking. He suffers from food allergies and has specific dietary requirements. He needs extra supplements to maintain his body weight. He is underweight.

 

6.       The child is on the school roll of a special school owned and operated by the authority. The school provides education for children who suffer from complex and severe learning difficulties. Since January 2006 the child has not attended the school.

 

7.       The child receives respite from the authority’s Social Work department at a respite facility. The respite offered is on a ten week cycle.

 

8.       The child has a Record of Needs which was formally opened in October 2003.

 

9.       The child has significant additional support needs.

 

10.      The child has a number of planning mechanisms in place to support his needs. He has an Individualised Education Plan (IEP), a School Care Plan, a Respite Care Plan and a Manual Handling Pupil Profile.

 

11.      The child would benefit from appropriate technology to help him to develop any visual skills that he has. In addition, he would benefit from appropriate technology to develop his fine and gross motor skills.

 

12.      The child will benefit from consistent approaches being adopted at school, respite and home. Communication between providers of support to the child is essential.

 

13.      The writing of a CSP in respect of the child was the first time the authority had completed the process.

 

14.      The authority issued a draft CSP to the appellant in respect of the child. The draft CSP was headed “CSP Planning Template”.

 

15.      A final CSP was issued to the appellant on November 2006.

 

16.      Information contained in the CSP Planning Template was not repeated in the final CSP.

 

 

 

 

6. Reasons for decision:

 

The Tribunal considered all the evidence indicated above.

 

The Tribunal heard that the authority viewed the CSP for the child as a work in progress and that it already required amendment on a very basic level – the address of the school had changed since the final CSP was issued as the school is not in a new building. The authority accepted that the part of the CSP which details the additional support required by the child could be more specific. The authority had been anxious not to repeat information which is contained in other planning documents in respect of the child. The authority accepted that these other planning documents and the Manual Handling Pupil Profile could be referenced in the CSP to ensure that all providers of additional support to the child were aware of the various documents in existence and of the requirement for communication in relation to the child’s needs amongst all service providers.

 

The Tribunal considers that it is important to include reference to other planning documents in existence to ensure consistency and communication across all agencies when working with the child.

 

The Tribunal considers that, in preparing the CSP for the child, the authority misunderstood the level of detail required in the CSP to fulfil the ethos of the Act to ensure co-ordination in support of children with multiple and complex additional support needs.

 

Chapter 4 of the Supporting Children’s Learning Code of Practice (“the Code”) provides guidance and examples to education authorities in preparing Co-ordinated Support Plans.

 

Paragraphs 51 to 54 on pages 63 to 64 of the Code provide guidance on the nature of educational objectives to be included in the CSP.

 

The Tribunal heard evidence and noted documentary evidence regarding the use of information technology which is being used to benefit the child in increasing his use of the limited vision that he has. In addition, reference was made to increasing his gross motor skills by the use of switches and teaching approaches. There was also evidence before the Tribunal that the child’s eating and drinking is something on which teaching staff and therapists were working when the child was in school. That is a legitimate education objective for the child. Evidence was also before the tribunal that the school provide a physiotherapy programme. This is a specific programme, used to achieve the specific objectives, and not an educational objective in itself.

 

Accordingly, the Tribunal considers that the Educational Objectives section of the child’s CSP does not accurately describe the child’s educational objectives and the amendments required by the Tribunal address these inaccuracies.

 

Paragraph 55 on page 64 of the Code provides:

 

“The co-ordinated support plan must describe the additional support required to achieve the education objectives stated. This will cover teaching and other staffing arrangements, appropriate facilities and resources, including information and communications technology, and any particular approaches to learning and teaching. The statement of support to be provided should be clear and specific and, wherever possible, should be quantified. Everyone should understand and be clear about what is being provided and why it is being provided. Statements such as “learning support as necessary” or “speech and language therapy as required” are too vague to be helpful. Statements such as the following provide a clearer idea about what is being provided:

 

• Voluntary agency to provide group work in school for 2 hours per week, approximately, for 1 term
• Speech and Language Therapist and classroom assistant will provide weekly therapy within a small group setting for 6 weeks followed by a specific programme being supported within the mainstream curriculum by the teacher and classroom assistant with a review of outcomes at the end of term.”

 

The Tribunal considers that the “Additional Support Required” section of the CSP does not reflect the guidance repeated above. The Tribunal is sufficiently concerned about this section to require amendment in the form of re-writing. The Tribunal is particularly concerned that the re-writing of this section is done having regard to the teaching and staffing arrangements for the child and quantification of the support provided to the child.

 

Specifically, the Tribunal considers that the Social Work, respite provision and moving and handling arrangements for the child ought to be included in this section given the need for consistency in all areas of the child’s care and the need for co-ordination and communication to achieve that consistency.

 

The Tribunal heard evidence of the personal input into the child’s education from a Specialist Visiting Visual Impairment Teacher. The evidence of this input was not reflected in terms of the CSP.

 

The Tribunal had evidence before it of the physiotherapy programme and considers that the Additional Support Required section is the appropriate place to include reference to the programme.

 

Paragraph 56 on page 64 of the Code provides guidance on the identification of the persons providing the additional support in a CSP. While specific named persons should not be included in this section, there should be reference to the agency or designation of the person who is to provide the support. This section of the child’s CSP had an inconsistent approach and included information which is more appropriately included in the section of Additional Support Required.

 

Specific additions that the Tribunal considers appropriate are Social Work for respite and other provision provided by them and the Orthotist as the Tribunal heard evidence of the input of the Orthotist on a regular basis. Each profession or post should be referred to consistently in this section.

 

Given the full-scale nature of the amendments required, the Tribunal considers that the local authority will require a four week period to obtain the relevant information and amend the plan.