ANONYMISED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
Reference: d/03/2007
Gender: Male
Age: 10
Type of Reference: Content of CSP
1. Reference:
The mother (“the appellant”) has made a reference to the Tribunal in relation to the information contained in a co-ordinated support plan in respect of her son (“the child”). This reference is made in terms of section 18(3) (d) (i) of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (
2. Decision of the Tribunal:
The Tribunal directs the respondent to make the following amendments to the co-ordinated support plan by end May 2007 in terms of section 19(4)(b).
1. The co-ordinated support plan should make reference to the child’s support plan, including the content thereof with particular reference to the following factors which may result in barriers to learning – concentration and processing of information.
2. The co-ordinated support plan should make particular reference to the fact that the child’s problem processing information is exacerbated by the effects of the child’s Insulin Dependent Diabetes (Type1).
3. The co-ordinated support plan should include specification of the equipment which is required for the purpose of checking the child’s BMs and the administration of his injections
3. Preliminary Matters:
Parties were advised that permission had been sought for an observer to be present during the proceedings. The Tribunal made an order in terms of Rule 27(5) of The Additional Support Needs Tribunal for
The appellant sought to introduce one item of late evidence being a CALL Centre Assessment Report. There being no objection, this was received and referenced accordingly.
In the course of the hearing one of the members of the Tribunal suggested that guidance had been issued by the Tribunal that there was an expectation that a child would be in attendance at hearings and if the child was not present then the Tribunal would be entitled to enquire as to the reason for the absence. This suggestion was incorrect. Before the hearing was concluded the Convener made it clear to parties that the Tribunal had issued no such guidance, there was no expectation on the part of the Tribunal that a child should be present or reason were required for the non-attendance of a child. The parties confirmed that they understood the correct position and that they understood there was no expectation for the child to have been present for the purpose of this hearing. The Convener was satisfied that having so advised the parties, any earlier mis-information that had been given by the member had been overruled and the parties had indicated that they understood that to be the case.
4. Summary of Evidence:
The Tribunal considered the case statements for the appellant and for the respondent. One item of late evidence had been received in advance of the hearing from the respondent dated April 2007 and referenced accordingly.
The Tribunal heard the oral evidence of the appellant and of the Education Authority.
5. Findings in Fact:
1. The child is 10 years old having been born in February 1997. He lives with his parents and 2 siblings. He is in Primary 6. In February 2005 the child was diagnosed with Insulin Dependent Diabetes (Type 1).
2. The child requires a regime of regular monitoring of his blood sugar and administration of insulin. He requires to be injected a number of times each day, including once during the school day. He has a limited awareness of when he is hypoglycaemic. He requires careful monitoring for signs of hypoglycaemia. He is unable to administer injections without assistance. A Healthcare Plan has been established which includes information for the management of the child’s diabetes. Provision has been made for a SEN assistant for 25 hours a week for the child. A Diabetes nurse provides advice to the school in relation to the management of the child’s diabetes.
3. The appellant sought an assessment for a co-ordinated support plan by letter dated April 2006. The child was considered in May 2006, it was agreed that the child’s needs could be considered complex. The respondent wrote to the appellant in August 2006 confirming that the decision of the education authority was that a co-ordinated support plan be opened for the child. The date for completion of the plan was given as end September 2006. A number of meetings took place, however the parties were in disagreement in relation to the nature of the co-ordinated support plan. The appellant made a reference to the Tribunal in relation to the respondent’s failure to comply with the time limits laid down for the preparation of the co-ordinated support plan. A hearing took place in December 2006 and the Tribunal directed the respondent to produce a co-ordinated support plan for the child by end January 2007. A co-ordinated support plan was produced on time.
4. A psychological assessment was carried out by an Educational Psychologist. A report was produced dated October 2006. The findings were inter alia that (1) as long as the child needs to have an injection regime reliably and predictably resourced during the school day, that it may be that this represents support from another agency which would meet the criteria for the opening of a co-ordinated support plan and (2) the child’s educational needs can be met within the normal criteria at school and via a support plan that regularly reviews general school and additional support from area network support.
5. The appellant is of the view that the co-ordinated support plan fails to fully identify the educational objectives and the additional support required by the child. These comments are included within the co-ordinated support plan. In March 2007 the respondent offered the appellant mediation as a means of addressing the matter. The appellant refused said offer.
6. The child has a Support Plan which details factors which may result in barriers to learning. These factors include blood sugar levels, processing speed and motivation. The Support Plan is to be reviewed in April 2007. There is a degree of overlap between the co-ordinated support plan, the healthcare plan and the support plan.
7. A CALL Centre Assessment was instructed by the respondent. The purpose of the report was to “ensure that the child has access to and uses the most appropriate resources to assist him with his school work”. The report was produced in March 2007 and makes recommendation for the use of a number of resources.
6. Reasons for decision:
The Tribunal considered all the evidence which was sufficient to enable the Tribunal to reach a fair decision on the reference.
The appellant provided the Tribunal with a comprehensive insight into the impact of Insulin Dependent Diabetes (Type 1) on the child, and his anxieties in relation to the administration of injections. Her evidence was that since the diagnosis was made in 2005 there had been a number of incidents surrounding the BM monitoring in school which had caused her concern. One example given was that when recording his own BMs, he had done so inaccurately which had resulted in him becoming hypoglycaemic. The appellant expressed the view that on occasions insufficient planning had been put into school trips to take account of the child’s condition. There were concerns in relation to staffing as the SEN assistant allocated to the child has not been available since the beginning of the year. At lunchtimes the monitoring of the child was left to the janitor, although it was accepted that the janitor was one of the trained first-aiders within the school. There was no suitable location for the administration of the lunchtime injection. On occasions the toilet had been used and now the injection was administered in a “staff base”. The appellant viewed this arrangement as inappropriate.
The appellant felt there was insufficient information contained in the co-ordinated support plan about her child’s educational objectives and the support required to achieve them. She highlighted deficiencies she saw in the CSP: there was nothing contained in the plan about the equipment that her child required; there was no reference to dietary requirement; there was no account taken of the difficulty the child has in relation to writing and concentration. [Reference was made to the CALL Centre Assessment Report and the equipment recommended therein.]
The appellant was also of the view that the staff at the Hospital should be named in the co-ordinated support plan as persons providing additional support.
The Tribunal also heard from the head teacher, who impressed the Tribunal as an extremely competent and caring head teacher. The head teacher described the child as an intuitive little boy who has an awareness of the anxieties, and has his own anxieties, over the administration of injections. The head teacher had obtained the child’s views in relation to the co-ordinated support plan. The head teacher was able to give the Tribunal an insight as to how he viewed the level of support available to him within the classroom. The head teacher described him as wanting to feel secure and safe in relation to his condition, and also wanting to fit in with the other children. It was felt that the child is happier in the classroom than previously and described a marked improvement in his interaction with others and his attitude. There is a comprehensive package in place for the child in terms of the Healthcare Plan, the Support Plan and the co-ordinated support plan, and referred to these plans in the evidence.
The head teacher gave a full account of the supervision of the child and management of his diabetes. He is subject to constant supervision. During breaks he is supervised by the janitor who has training and personal experience of living with diabetes. Past problems have been resolved, e.g. storage of insulin at appropriate temperature. Accommodation difficulties have been resolved by using a staff base which is comfortable and has access to toilet facilities. Staff are not permitted access to the room during the relevant period, 12 until 1pm. Risk management is undertaken in relation to trips. A family member is always welcome to attend on outings in addition to SEN provision.
The head teacher confirmed that the SEN assistant allocated to the child has been on sick leave since the beginning of the year. When the SEN assistant returns to work, they will return to that position. In the interim period a Community Children’s Nurse (CCN) had been attending to administer the child’s injection. The child has 25 hours of SEN input, there are five hours within the school week where there is no SEN cover and the head teacher was clear in her evidence that it was not needed during that time. The Tribunal were advised about a “red card” system in place should an emergency arise with the child.
The head teacher described the recently produced CALL Centre Assessment Report as having good implications for the child and indicated that the Support Plan would need to be reviewed in light thereof. She indicated that one of the child’s teachers is very proficient in ICT skills and would be in a position to pick up on areas in the report.
In conclusion, on behalf of the respondent it was conceded that some adjustment of the co-ordinated support plan was appropriate. It remained the authority’s position that this could have been resolved through a process of mediation. The respondent’s representative indicated that there should be reference to the support plan and its contents within the co-ordinated support plan. The respondent’s representative took the view that the medical report supported the view that the child has an independent problem with processing information which is exacerbated by the diabetes.
The respondent’s representative advised the Tribunal that he did not have a difficulty with there being a reference to staff from the hospital being contained within the co-ordinated support plan however this could only be done with agreement of the staff. The respondent’s representative would explore with the hospital staff whether they would agree to inclusion in the plan or not. He also indicated that he would carry out investigation with the dietician whether there should be any reference to dietary requirements within the CSP.
The respondent’s representative indicated that the Support Plan was due for review and it would now be appropriate to do so in light of the CALL Centre Assessment Report. Investigation would be undertaken to ascertain what input, if any might be anticipated from CALL Centre.
The respondent’s representative indicted that the Healthcare Plan should be reviewed in association with health care professionals, the child and parents.
In all the circumstances the Tribunal was satisfied that the co-ordinated support plan should be amended to take account of the matters referred to above. The Tribunal welcomed the respondent’s representative’s undertakings in relation to carrying out further investigations in relation to issues arising from the CALL Centre report and the review of both the Healthcare and Support Plans.
