ASNTS_D_13_2009_02.11.09

 

 

ANONYMISED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

 

Reference:                              D/13/2009

 

Gender:                                   Female

 

Age:                                         9

 

Type of reference:                   Contents of Co-ordinated Support Plan

 

 

 

 

1. Reference:

 

The Appellants (“the parents”) lodged a reference on 10^th July 2009 under and in terms of section 18 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 (“the Act”) on the basis that they disagreed with the information in the co-ordinated support plan (“the CSP”) prepared by the Education Authority for their daughter.

 

A previous reference in respect of their daughter was made in relation to the failure of the Authority to prepare the CSP within the time-limits provided in the Act and the subordinate legislation.

 

2. Decision of the Tribunal:

 

The Tribunal requires the authority to make amendment of the information contained in the CSP 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 amendments required are as follows:

 

1. In the section headed “Factors Giving Rise to Additional Support Needs” so that the section reads:

 

“The central factors requiring consideration and co-ordination are:-

• Her learning difficulties
• Her Autistic Spectrum Disorder
• Her attention and concentration difficulties
• Her severe verbal dyspraxia
• Her associated communication and interaction impairment
• Her sensory integration dysfunction
• Her fine and gross motor difficulties
• Her poor eyesight
• Cyclical vomiting syndrome and her abdominal migraine
• Her food sensitivities
• Behavioural issues as a consequence of the above”

 

The said amendment was agreed between the parties.

 

2. In the section headed “Educational Objectives” so that the section reads as in terms of Appendix 1 hereto.

 

3. In the section headed “Additional Support Required” so that the section reads as in terms of Appendix 1 hereto.

 

4. In the section headed “Persons providing the additional support” so that the section reads as in terms of Appendix 1 hereto.

 

 

3. Preliminary Matters:

 

The parties provided various documents for late consideration by the Tribunal. All of the said documents were permitted to be lodged late and are identified as follows:

 

TT1 – Letter from Appellant’s Representative dated 7 October 2009 enclosing pages from the Official Report of the Scottish Parliament

TT2 – E mail from Education Officer dated 9 October 2009 with attachments

TT3 – E mail from Education Officer dated 14 October 2009 with attachments

TT4 – E mail from Appellant’s Representative dated 14 October 2009 with attachments

TT5 – CSP Discussion paper prepared by Appellant’s Representative

TT6 – E mail from Education Officer dated 27 October 2009

 

Within these documents, TT3 provides a further updated proposed CSP drafted by the authority. That proposed CSP was the subject of the Tribunal hearing. That proposed CSP was subject to amendments detailed by the authority in TT6.

 

The parents provided their own suggested amendments to the proposed CSP by the authority. Their suggested amendments were contained in TT4. During the course of the first day of the hearing, it became apparent to the Tribunal that the parents were departing from their suggested amendments in TT4. Following a request by the Tribunal, the parents submitted TT5 containing their revised suggested amendments. TT5 requires to be read along with pages 4, 5 and 6 of TT4 containing their initial suggested amendments.

 

As a result of preliminary discussions between the parties, the authority made proposals as to the amendment of the section headed “Factors Giving Rise to Additional Support Needs”. These proposals were acceptable to the parents and the reference did not proceed in respect of this section of the CSP. The decision of the Tribunal as to the amendments required in this section reflects an agreement between the parties.

 

The Tribunal hearing proceeded in relation to the remaining three possible sections of the CSP.

 

4. Summary of Evidence:

 

At a conference call on 7^th October 2009, it was agreed that the parents’ would call their witnesses first. The Tribunal heard evidence from the following witnesses on behalf of the parents:

 

• Behavioural psychologist. She has an Honours degree in Psychology and is completing her board certification as a behaviour analyst. She has been qualified as a psychologist for 9 years. She is self employed, has a particular interest in behaviour analysis and consults with children in their own home. She currently sees the appellant’s daughter every 8 to 12 weeks and anticipates that she will continue to do so for at least two years. She previously saw her every six weeks for a period of about 3 months. The psychologist gave evidence about the nature of the programme which is provided for the appellant’s daughter in her home. The psychologist is contracted by the parents to provide the program to their daughter. It involves intensive teaching methods on the ABA (Applied Behaviour Analysis) programme. The psychologist provides advice to those delivering the programme to the child including her parents, the teacher contracted by her parents and various others who have been brought in to deliver the programme by the appellants including students of speech and language therapy. She gave clear evidence of what she saw as the benefits to the appellant’s daughter of the programme she is getting at home. She confirmed that she had no direct input to her education in school.
• Teacher. She has a degree in Arts and a Post Graduate Certificate in Education. She is registered with the General Teaching Council. She graduated in 2002. Her experience is with early years and primary school age children. She has worked on 5 ABA programmes over the last 2 and a half years and continues to work with 3 children on such programmes of which the appellant’s daughter is one. She has a two hour session with her each week and spends 30 minutes at the end of each session with the child’s mum. She also works with the other persons providing the child’s programme including the speech and language therapy students.

 

The Tribunal also heard from the parents about the background to the reference, their daughter’s experiences at nursery and in the years before this at school. They also gave evidence of the programme provided by them for their daughter at home. They gave evidence of the difficulties they have faced in ensuring that their daughter gets an education which suits her needs.

 

The Tribunal heard evidence from the following witnesses on behalf of the authority:

 

• Headteacher. She has held that post for five years. She has a Diploma in Education, a Diploma in Special Education Needs and the Scottish Qualification for headship. She was previously the headteacher of another school for 10 years and has been a teacher for 34 years, 2 of which she spent in mainstream schooling. The Headteacher gave evidence of the nature of the curriculum taught at the school. She gave evidence of the significant nature of the additional support required by the child particularly in respect of speech and language therapy. She explained that the child is part of a dual planning process as a result of which there are regular review meetings for school and also regular care co-ordination meetings. The educational psychologist is responsible for the care co-ordination planning process. The Headteacher gave evidence of the involvement of Keycomm in school and that speech and language therapists can contact Keycomm for assistance. The Headteacher was unable to give specific evidence on the occupational therapy required by the child or how often she was seeing the occupational therapist at present.
• Speech and Language Therapist. The speech and language therapist is employed by the NHS and is based at the School. She has been a speech and language therapist since 1995 and has a BSc in Speech and Language Therapy. She has had the child on her case load for 16 months. At present, the child communicates by using her PECS at school and is currently focussing on using her communication aid (Springboard Lite) on which she is being assessed. As a result of that assessment, the child presently sees the speech and language therapist for one individual session each week, the speech and language assistant for one individual session each week and one group session each week hosted by the speech and language assistant. The additional support that the child will require from the speech and language therapy service will continue to be significant. She gave evidence about the strong links between the speech and language therapy service and Keycomm. Keycomm are presently involved with the child in terms of assessing whether Springboard Lite is the appropriate communication aid for her although they have no direct involvement in the classroom. In future, Keycomm will be involved in identifying the appropriate communication aids for the child. The hi-tech communication aids are funded and supplied through Keycomm. The speech and language therapist gave evidence that until the child was provided with the Springboard Lite for the assessment and trial period, her main means of communication was PECS and signing. She gave evidence of the Visiting Teacher providing training to staff on PECS. Training was then being cascaded down to all staff. The speech and language therapist gave evidence about her involvement in sourcing signs for the child’s GINN reading programme. She provides these each week to the class teacher.

 

In addition to the oral evidence, the Tribunal heard the submissions on behalf of both the parents and the authority. Throughout the hearing, the Tribunal had regard to the papers lodged by both the parents and the authority.

 

5. Findings in Fact

 

1. The child requires an elaborated curriculum. The short term objectives on said curriculum are detailed on her Individualised Educational Programme.
2. The child communicates by use of sign-a-long, PECS, AAC and through her current hi tech communication aid. She has the support of speech and language therapy and Keycomm in providing her with appropriate communication aids.
3. The child is accessing the GINN reading scheme with intensive teaching from her class teacher and with the assistance of the speech and language therapist in providing signs and symbols to accompany the programme.
4. The child requires weekly input from speech and language therapy and is likely to continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
5. The child requires frequent input from occupational therapy and is likely to continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
6. The child requires input from the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service.
7. The Visiting Teacher Service provide input to her education by training staff members in PECS and being available for consultation regarding her communication.
8. The child’s parents have developed and commissioned a home programme based on adaptive behavioural analysis which involves intensive and fast paced teaching. The child’s parents have seen an improvement in her ability to learn since the commencement of the home programme.
1. The child’s mum liaises between school and the home programme to ensure that the child is not confused by what she is learning in school and at home.
10. The child’s class teacher is mirroring some of the principles of the home programme when working with her on her reading skills.
11. The child’s parents are satisfied with the current provision of education for her at the School.
50. The child does not require the currently implemented home programme to benefit from school education.

 

 

6. Reasons for decision:

 

The Tribunal considered all the evidence indicated above.

 

Having regard to the terms of the Code of Practice, the Tribunal is of the view that the educational objectives which should be listed in the CSP are those which require the input of an agency other than education. The additional support provided by all agencies including education to meet those objectives should be detailed in the CSP together with quantification and identification of the provider e.g. class teacher or speech and language therapist.

 

The Tribunal consider that both the speech and language therapist and occupational therapist have considerable involvement in the child’s elaborated curriculum. As such, an educational objective as to her need for an elaborated curriculum should be included in her CSP.

 

Other planning documents should be referred to in the CSP and, as the child requires an IEP, it should be detailed in the “Additional Support Required” column of the CSP.

 

As the child is non-verbal and has limited forms of communication, it is important that she is surrounded by staff who are able to communicate with her. Staff training is crucial in maintaining same. The Visiting Teacher service is involved in ensuring that staff are trained to the appropriate level. Given the child’s reliance in the past on PECS and that no decisions have been made as to the appropriate communication aid for her in the future, the role of the PECS implementer from the Visiting Teacher service is important for the child and, as such, that person should be named on the child’s CSP.

 

As a matter of fact, the child has the benefit of a programme of education provided for her by her parents at home. Her parents have seen an improvement in her ability to learn since the programme started and they, understandably, want to ensure that she is not confused by learning in markedly different ways at school and at home. The child’s parents want the CSP to include that they themselves and the various persons providing the home programme are “persons providing the additional support”.

 

Section 2 of the Act 2004 provides:

 

“(1) For the purposes of this Act, a child or young person requires a plan (referred to in this Act as a “co-ordinated support plan”) for the provision of additional support if-

 

1. an education authority are responsible for the school education of the child or young person,
2. the child or young person has additional support needs arising from-

1. one or more complex factors; or
2. multiple factors,

3. those needs are likely to continue for more than a year, and
4. those needs require significant additional support to be provided-

1. by the education authority in the exercise of any of their other functions as well as in exercise of their functions relating to education, or
2. by one or more appropriate agencies (within the meaning of section 23(2) as well as by the education authority themselves.”

 

Having regard to the purpose of a CSP, it is important to note the limitation contained in section 2 to the education authority and appropriate agencies.

 

Section 23 (2) provides:

 

“For the purposes of this Act, each of the following is, in relation to any education authority, an appropriate agency, namely-

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

 

The Scottish Ministers have made only one order in terms of section 23 (2) (c) being The Additional Support for Learning (Appropriate Agencies) (Scotland) Order 2005 (SSI325/2005) which came into force on 14 November 2005. Paragraph 2 thereof provides that colleges of further education and higher education, the Scottish Agricultural College and Careers Scotland are appropriate agencies.

 

Paragraph 56 of Chapter 4 of the Code of Practice provides:

 

“The plan must state the “persons” who should be providing the support. What is meant here are the agencies or professions providing the support, not the actual names of individuals. So, for example, terms such as “visiting teacher of the deaf”, “speech and language therapist”, “social worker”, “clinical psychologist”, and “Careers Scotland” are acceptable terms. It is neither desirable, nor necessary, to name, for example, the speech and language therapist, since while personnel may change the additional support need not.”

 

Having regard to the purpose of the CSP and the education authority’s duties to involve parents in a child’s education, the Tribunal do not consider that it is appropriate to include a child’s parents in the persons providing the additional support. As the persons commissioned by the child’s parents to deliver a programme to her at home are not persons from an appropriate agency, the Tribunal do not consider that it is appropriate to include them in the persons providing the additional support.

 

For that reason, as the CSP is a statutory document, the Tribunal do not consider it appropriate to include as persons providing the additional support persons who are neither employed nor contracted by the education authority (in whatever form) and neither employed not contracted by an appropriate agency (in whatever form). The lack of basis for inclusion in the CSP does not restrict the ability of the child’s parents to liaise with the school about what is happening in the home programme and vice versa.

 

Even were the Tribunal convinced that persons not employed nor contracted by an education authority or an appropriate agency could be included in the CSP, it would not have considered it appropriate to do so having regard to its finding that the home programme is not additional support which is required to enable the child to benefit from school education. It is provision which is in addition to her school education but is not required to allow her to benefit therefrom.

 

The Tribunal consider that the child requires one to one sessions with a speech and language therapist on a weekly basis. The speech and language therapist gave evidence to that effect. That is not a short term requirement.

 

The Tribunal consider that Keycomm will have an ongoing role to play in the child’s education and the additional support she requires.

 

The Tribunal consider that an educational objective concerning the child’s reading skills is appropriately contained in her CSP having regard to the evidence of the speech and language therapist that she is involved in sourcing signs and symbols to accompany the programme the child is working on. The Tribunal heard evidence from the headteacher and the speech and language therapist about the nature of the teaching methods used with the child on her GINN reading programme. Having regard to that, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to include those methods in the additional support required.

 

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal consider that the clinical psychologist will have input to the child’s education at least annually and such quantification is specified in the amendments required.

 

The Tribunal consider it appropriate that a medical protocol is developed to identify when the child’s parents should be contacted to ensure that the child receives the appropriate medical intervention depending on the particular circumstances affecting her at the time. The Tribunal heard that the child’s parents are currently contacted but consider that a formal medical protocol is appropriate. The school nurses will co-ordinate such a plan but its development will involve many agencies and the child’s parents themselves.

 

The child’s parents were keen to stress to the Tribunal that the education the child is receiving at present at School is in line with their wishes and that they are very happy with the current provision. Their main aim is to ensure that the provision continues in the manner that it presently does. The parents gave evidence that the current provision is much better than that received by the child in her earlier years at the school. The Tribunal cannot comment on the history of the child’s attendance at school having insufficient evidence before it to do so. However, it is to be hoped that, with a robust CSP and appropriate additional support in place, the child can continue to thrive, learn and to benefit from her school education.