ASNTS_D_06_2009_23.07.09

 

 

 

ANONYMISED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

 

 

 

Reference:              d/06/2009

 

Gender:                   Male

 

Age:                        7

 

Type of Reference: Review of Co-ordinated Support Plan

 

 

­­­­­­­­

1. Reference:

 

The appellants lodged a reference on 20 November 2008 under section 18 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 (“the Act”) on the basis that the authority refused the appellants request for a review of the Co-ordinated Support Plan (“the CSP”) issued in respect of the child on 2 April 2008. During the process of the reference, a review of the said CSP was carried out and thereafter the appellants’ reference was converted to one under section 18 of the Act on the basis that the appellants disagreed with the information in the CSP prepared by the authority for the child. The appellant in this reference presented their own evidence to the Tribunal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 the amendments detailed herein 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 as follows:

 

1. In the section headed “Factors Giving Rise to Additional Support Needs”;

 

1. 1. By adding the words “eating, drinking and swallowing” at the end of the sentence ending “hand function” on the third line; and
   2. By deleting the second paragraph in the section.

 

2. In the section headed “Educational Objectives”:

 

1. 1. By including reference to the Educational Objectives in the child’s Additional Support Plan;
   2. By including objectives relating to the child social development
   3. By including in the Occupational Therapy headed objectives, “ensure that equipment provided or recommended by the Occupational Therapist (OT) is appropriate for the child’s needs and that the child is able to benefit from his use thereof.
   4. By deleting the objective in the Physiotherapy objectives and substituting therefor

i.          “To improve the child’s independent mobility. To collaborate with education staff and provide training to ensure the child has access to all aspects of the curriculum including physical education and non classroom based activities.”

ii.          “To ensure that equipment provided or recommended by Physiotherapy is appropriate for the child’s needs and that the child is able to benefit from his use thereof.

1. 5. By deleting the objective in the Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) objectives and substituting therefor “To monitor the child’s eating, drinking and swallowing and to advise and instruct school staff on safe positioning and sensory preferences during mealtimes.”

 

3. In the section headed “Additional Support Required, by including the following”;

 

1. 1. The school’s allocated learning support teacher – plus quantification of the additional support provided by said teacher to be a minimum of once each month
   2. Class teacher – plus quantification of the additional support provided by said teacher
   3. Visual Impairment (VI) Specialist teacher – plus quantification of the additional support provided by said teacher to be a minimum of one hour each month
   4. Additional Support Assistant – plus quantification of the additional support provided by said assistant as being whole time one on one additional support
   5. Differentiation of homework
   6. More specific detail and quantification re physiotherapy and inclusion of current level of support at one hour per week. In addition there should be specific reference to the physiotherapy care planning document
   7. More specific detail and quantification re Occupational Therapy and inclusion of current level of support at one hour per week. In addition there should be specific reference to the OT care planning document
   8. Specific detail and quantification re SALT and inclusion of level of support at  one visit per term. In addition there should be specific  reference to the SALT care planning document
   1. Specific reference to Moving and Handling Guidelines specific to the child and a Risk Assessment in relation to the child and his attendance in each area of the school together with reference to where both of these documents may be found.
   10. Physical education (PE) and playground activities for the child and the differentiation of those
   11. The equipment (including wheelchairs, standing frames, trikes and benches) used by the child in school, where each item is used, the purpose for which each item is used, the provider of each item and the party or organisation responsible for the maintenance of each item. 

 

4. In the section headed “Persons Providing the Additional Support” include;

 

1. 1. Learning support teacher
   2. Visiting VI specialist teacher

 

 

 

 

3. Preliminary Matters:

 

Conference calls were held with the Convener on the following dates:

 

17^th February 2009 when the decision was made to postpone the hearing fixed for 23 February 2009

8^th April 2009 when the conference call was continued for the draft CSP to be issued

5^th May 2009 when the decision was made to convert the reference to one concerning the contents of the CSP

29^th June 2009 when preliminary matters relative to the hearing were discussed.

 

Those preliminary issues were:

 

1.         The Appellant requested that independent assessments be directed by the Tribunal to be carried out by a Consultant Paediatrician, a Physiotherapist, an Occupational Therapist, a Speech and Language Therapist and an Educational Psychologist. As reports were available from Consultant Ophthalmologist, a new physiotherapist and occupational therapist had recently become involved with the child and a Speech and Language Therapist was carrying out an updated assessment, it was not considered that independent assessments from a Consultant Paediatrician, a Physiotherapist, an Occupational Therapist and a Speech and Language Therapist were required. This was primarily due to the information already available and due to the need not to have the child assessed by a number of different professionals when no necessity for same was clear. It is not in children’s best interests to be repeatedly assessed and seen by professionals not known to them unless there are clear and cogent reasons for doing so.

 

2.         The Appellant requested that the Tribunal issue witness citations for the Education Officer’s line manager or managers at the authority. The decision was made that no such citation would be issued as it was not demonstrated that any such witness would assist the Tribunal in the determination of the reference which related solely to the contents of the CSP. There is an ongoing dispute and complaint between the Appellant and the authority. The request for the witness citation appeared to relate more to the said dispute and complaint than to the subject matter of the reference.

 

The decisions made on the said preliminary issues were communicated to both parties during the conference call.

 

It was noted during the conference call that two documents would be allowed to be submitted though late. These were the e mail containing the views of an educational psychologist on whether the child could comment on the contents of his CSP and the assessment, insofar as completed, of the Speech and Language Therapist. Communication was received from the authority following the conference call which explained that the e mail from the educational psychologist was already lodged. The SALT Report was made available prior to the hearing of the reference and was referred to therein.

 

The process of the hearing was explained during the conference call particularly in relation to the Tribunal’s lead role in questioning the witnesses who would give evidence.

 

During the course of the hearing, the Head Teacher, referred to an Additional Support Plan in respect of the child which was said to have been updated in or about April 2009 and was not before the Tribunal. The Tribunal requested that a copy of the Plan be made available to the Tribunal and it duly was made available and lodged.

 

 

 

 

4. Summary of Evidence:

 

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

 

1. Appellants’ statement;
2. Authority case statement;
3. Draft CSP;
4. Additional Support Plan dated December 2007;
5. Additional Support Plan dated April 2009;
6. Daily Support Plan dated January 2009;
7. Speech and Language report;
8. Correspondence between the authority and the Appellant;
1. Correspondence between the Appellant and various agencies;
10. Report by Consultant Ophthalmologist.

 

In addition, the Tribunal heard oral evidence from two witnesses, heard from the Appellant directly including a written prepared opening statement and heard the submissions of the Appellant in the form of a written statement and from the authority’s representative.

 

5. Findings in Fact:

 

1.         The child is a seven year old boy. He lives with his parents and siblings

 

2.         The child attends a school operated by the authority. This is a mainstream primary school. The child has just completed Primary 2 and will commence Primary 3 in August 2009.

 

3.         The child has periventricular leukomalacia (PVL), is registered as partially sighted, has a chronic bowel condition, has spastic diplegic cerebral palsy with total body involvement, has problems with eating, drinking and swallowing, is a wheelchair user and has Asperger’s Syndrome.

 

4.         At school the child requires significant additional support from his class teacher, his additional support assistant, a physiotherapist, an occupational therapist, a visiting VI specialist teacher and a speech and language therapist.

 

5.         The child’s class teacher provides significant additional support in relation to the differentiation of the curriculum to allow the child to benefit from school education. The class teacher has responsibility for differentiating his curriculum. She is overseen in that task by the school’s Deputy Head teacher.

 

6.         The child has an additional support assistant who is assigned specifically and solely to him. She is predominantly responsible for supporting the child’s transitions between chairs, wheelchairs, standing frame, bench and floor during the school day. Two people are required for each transition. She is also responsible for supervising and assisting the child when he is drinking, eating and swallowing. The child’s problems with eating, drinking and swallowing result in him gagging at almost every meal. He also experiences reflux when eating and drinking. His positioning and posture require to be monitored to ensure that he eats and drinks safely. The additional support assistant is responsible for monitoring the child and ensuring that advice offered by a Speech and Language Therapist is followed to ensure safe eating and drinking. The child’s present additional support assistant is reported to be very capable and is a very good source of support to the child.

 

7.         At present the child is visited in school by a physiotherapist for one hour each week. The physiotherapist also provides support for the child in accessing physical education (PE).

 

8.         At present the child is visited in school by an occupational therapist for one hour each week.

 

9.         The visiting VI specialist teacher visits the child on one each occasion each month for around one hour at a time. She provides advice to the class teacher and the additional support assistant to ensure the child can access materials and perform recording in the most suitable manner for his visual impairment.

 

10.       The child has not received direct support from a Speech and Language Therapist for some time. It is anticipated that SALT support will be provided on one occasion each term with the child being observed on these occasions and advice offered to those involved in his day to day education to ensure his safety when eating and drinking.

 

11.       The child would benefit from the use of information technology resources in school and at home. He is due to be re-assessed in respect of his need for information technology during Primary 3. The said assessment will be crucial in identifying whether additional resources would improve the child’s ability to benefit from school education.

 

12.       The child had difficulty completing the homework set for him during Primary 2 with him being recorded in his school report in May 2009 as only occasionally making a good effort to complete his homework. This is due firstly to the child being tired when he returns from school and also due to the kind of homework being set for him which involves tiring methods of recording. The child’s homework is not differentiated from that of his classmates.

 

13.       The child does not receive any additional support from the learning support visiting teacher. The said teacher spends one afternoon each week at Primary School. The child is not one of the pupils for which this level of support is awarded. The child would benefit from the input of the learning support visiting teacher to ensure that he is achieving his potential in school and benefiting in full from his school education. That support should include differentiation of his curriculum including the homework required of him.

 

14.       The child has particular preferences as to the meals he enjoys. His preferences are not always available to him in terms of the school menu. The child requires to be encouraged to try different meal choices and his eating and drinking continually monitored.

 

 

6. Reasons for decision:

 

The Tribunal considered all the evidence indicated above.

 

The Tribunal is concerned that the educational planning for the child has been uncoordinated and piecemeal with no one document being available which lists his educational objectives, the additional support he requires and the persons delivering that support. While the Tribunal accepts that information contained in planning documents which is accessible to all those involved with the child and which is regularly reviewed need not be repeated in his CSP, such a planning document does not exist for the child. The Tribunal were referred to a Daily Support Plan and an Additional Support Plan. The former does not contain the level of detail required to ensure that the child’s additional support needs are met. The latter has not been reviewed since its inception in or around August 2007. An updated Additional Support Plan dated April 2009 appears only to have been amended by the inclusion of reference to the child’s diagnosis as having Asperger's Syndrome. The Additional Support Plan does not contain any educational objectives.

 

The Tribunal is concerned that a Moving and Handling Plan for the child, if it exists, is not accessible. It was not produced to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is concerned that a formal risk assessment, updated to include reviews and different equipment does not appear to exist.

 

In all these circumstances, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that information relating to the child’s educational objectives, the additional support he requires to benefit from school education and the persons providing that support are to be found in any planning document. As a result the Tribunal cannot consider that the educational resources provided to the child in the form of additional support provided by the education service of the authority need not be detailed in the CSP. Of course, only long term educational objectives ought to be detailed in the CSP. The planning process for the child, in his Additional Support Plan, ought to be more detailed and contain reference to his short and medium term educational objectives which are subject to review. Reference in the CSP to an Additional Support Plan is only of assistance to all parties if that Additional Support Plan provides the relevant information and is regularly reviewed. Education officer’s evidence was that the Additional Support Plan ought to be reviewed each school term. The Tribunal cannot disagree with that frequency.

 

The Tribunal is not concerned with the title or name of a planning document which sits underneath the CSP. The Tribunal is more concerned with the existence of such a planning document. The appellants were keen to have an Individualised Education Plan established for the child and that the CSP make reference to it. The Tribunal does not consider that to be necessary and consider that a full Additional Support Plan containing the relevant information and subject to regular review would provide the appropriate level of planning for the child.

 

As a result of the above, the Tribunal is concerned that the role of the educational and school staff in meeting the educational objectives in the CSP is not mentioned in the CSP and in addition that there was no reference to the Additional Support Plan within the CSP. The spirit of the Act is to enable all services providing co-ordinated support to a child to identify the aims and objectives and see easily and clearly what other agencies are providing. This ensures joined up provision and avoids duplication or inconsistency. One method of ensuring that the spirit of the Act is fulfilled is by including reference in the CSP to other planning documents which are in existence. Where such planning documents are deficient, all support requires to be detailed in the CSP.

 

Having regard to the terms of the Act’s 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. However, the additional support provided by education to meet those objectives should be detailed in the CSP together with quantification and identification of the provider e.g. class teacher, additional support assistant or learning support teacher.

 

In the child’s case, the Tribunal had evidence that the school was providing additional support which was directed and guided by that provided by his physiotherapist, his occupational therapist and his speech and language therapist. That should be detailed in his CSP.

 

In the section, Factors Giving Rise to Additional Support Needs the Tribunal considered there was sufficient evidence to include specific reference to problems experienced by the child in eating, drinking and swallowing. The Tribunal did not consider there was sufficient evidence before it to disagree with the authority when it provides that the child’s bowel condition does not presently impact on his learning. The evidence relating to the child’s use of his inhaler in school was inconsistent and unclear. The second paragraph of the section appears to the Tribunal to be entirely superfluous and more suited, if required at all, to the profile section.

 

In the Educational Objectives section, the Tribunal considered that although the Additional Support Plan was presently not in a form which could provide the relevant information it was to be hoped that the said Plan would be subject to early review and short and medium term educational objectives and more specification added. In those circumstances, it is appropriate to include reference to the said Plan in the CSP in anticipation of the plan providing the required information. The Tribunal considered there was sufficient evidence to include educational objectives relating to the child’s social development. It is apparent that he receives additional support in respect of social development at present in terms of his play with his peers and in his interaction with his peers during class time and break time. It is appropriate that an educational objective reflecting the additional support he receives is included. Any educational objectives relating to social development are likely to be long term in nature and appropriate for inclusion in the CSP as they require input from the providers of equipment and the physiotherapist, OT and SALT. The Tribunal considered that there should be specific educational objectives relating to the equipment used by the child. Again any such objective will be long term in nature and require the input of other agencies. The Tribunal considered that the educational objectives linked to physiotherapy and speech and language therapy ought to reflect the objectives of those services as contained in their reports. The Tribunal acknowledge that the reports were not available at the time the CSP was drafted.

 

In the Additional Support Required section, the Tribunal was influenced in its decision by the lack of an effective planning document sitting below the CSP. Accordingly, the Tribunal considered that the support provided by the education department should be specified and quantified. The Tribunal has found in fact that the child would benefit from the additional support of the school’s allocated learning support teacher and consider that such support at the level of once per month would be appropriate to assist with the differentiation of the child’s curriculum including homework. Specification and quantification of the additional support a child requires is a cornerstone of the Code of Practice and ought to be included for all providing additional support including education departments where that specification and quantification is not provided elsewhere. The Tribunal considered that the child required differentiated homework to ensure that he benefits therefrom and similarly considered differentiation to be required in PE and playground activities. The Tribunal considered there to be insufficient specification and quantification of the additional support provided by the physiotherapist, OT and SALT and requires the inclusion of such specification and quantification by reference to the current level of support provided. Specification of the equipment provided and used by the child will assist all parties to co-ordinate the range of additional support that can be provided to the child in relation to equipment.

 

In the Persons Providing the Additional Support section, the inclusion of the learning support teacher and the visiting VI specialist teacher is required as a result of the decisions made by the Tribunal as outlined above.