ASNTS_D_17_2006_15.05.07

ANONYMISED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

Reference:              d/17/2006

Gender:                   Male

Age:                        10

Type of Reference: CSP not required               

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

1. Reference

The mother referred the child’s case to the Tribunal on 2 grounds:

1. the education authority had failed to comply timeously with her request to establish whether her son required a coordinated support plan; and
2. she disagreed with the education authority’s decision that her son does not require a coordinated support plan.

2. Decision of the Tribunal

The Tribunal

1. notes the education authority’s failure to comply timeously with the appellant’s request but determines that no action is now required; and
2. confirms the education authority’s decision that  the child does not require a coordinated support plan.

3. Preliminary Matters

By agreement with parties, the Tribunal

• allowed all late documents to be received,
• heard the mother’s evidence first, and
• heard the child’s evidence in his mother’s presence but without representatives present.

4. Summary of Evidence

The evidence considered by the Tribunal consisted of the bundles of documents submitted by both the appellant and the education authority, together with oral evidence from:

• the appellant
• The child’s, Head Teacher,

       Acting Senior Educational Psychologist,

• The child
•   A Social Worker,

5. Findings in Fact

1.  The child was born in 1996 and lives with his mother
2. As a result of a successful placing request by the mother, the child attends a local primary school, where he is currently in P6. The journey between home and school involves taking 2 buses. The mother is seeking local authority re-housing in an area closer to the school.

3. The child has additional support needs relating to attention and listening skills, literal interpretation of what is said to him, maintaining concentration, and social interaction with other children.
4. These needs are likely to continue for more than 1 year.
5. In January 2006 the child’s progress was reviewed by an, Acting Senior Educational Psychologist. At this point the child completed assessment tests in reading and spelling at a higher level than his chronological age. The school was aware of the child’s additional support needs and already had measures in place to support him, such as provision of a separate table for working on his own, a “traffic lights” system to aid his concentration, some support from a classroom auxiliary and support in the playground with his social skills. The child made appropriate use of these measures.
6. In February 2006 the education authority agreed to establish an individual education plan (IEP) for the child. The IEP was drawn up in May 2006, but did not include the mother’s or the child’s views. It has subsequently been updated with information from the mother and from the child
7. In April 2006 the mother’s advocate wrote to the head teacher to request that the education authority assess the child for a coordinated support plan. The education authority concluded that the IEP was sufficient to meet the child’s needs. Due to a misunderstanding this decision was not formally communicated to the mother until the head teacher wrote to her to that effect in October 2006.
8. The mother meets regularly with the head teacher and other school staff to discuss the child’s progress. In addition a number of more formal meetings have taken place to review the child’s progress, sometimes involving representatives of other services. The child has taken part in a number of these meetings.
9. The child is progressing well at school. He is currently working at either level C or level D in all areas of the curriculum apart from writing, where he is currently at level B. His interpersonal skills are improving. He is completing homework on time. His behaviour is good.
10. The school has not at any time required to adapt the curriculum to enable the child to access it.
11. The child enjoys practical and creative activities at school, such as music and drama. He finds mathematics and language boring but knows that he is progressing well.
12. Until about March 2007 the child attended an after school club four nights a week until 6pm, and a young carers’ group, a martial arts class and a piano lesson once a week each. The child reported that he often felt tired. In March the mother stopped his attendance at the after school club and the martial arts class. Since then he has been less tired and has appeared happier.
13. The Mother suffers from a range of medical conditions; including epilepsy. In early 2004 she received inpatient treatment following an adverse reaction to medication.
14. During this period the child stayed with his maternal grandfather and continued to attend his primary School. His school work and behaviour were adversely affected by his family circumstances.
15. The mother remains liable to suffer epileptic seizures and ongoing chronic fatigue. Her father continues to offer support in caring for the child  In addition he  and his mother  often spend time with the child’s  maternal grandmother
16. The mother has a community alarm which the child is able to use to summon help if required. Other than that, however, he does not undertake any significant care role for his mother. He is aware of his mother’s health difficulties but, except during the period in 2004 referred to above, this awareness has not impacted on his progress at school. He frequently travels between school and home on his own but copes well with doing so.
17. The child attends a young carers’ project run by the Voluntary Service He talks to project staff about school-related concerns such as homework or bullying.
18. Following a child protection referral in December 2005, the child was allocated a social worker and has had the same social worker since January 2006, on a non-compulsory basis. The child sought her assistance in trying to establish contact with his father. The social worker has sought financial assistance for the mother and has supported her application for re-housing. She offered the mother the option to have her needs as a carer assessed, which she declined.
19. The mother has requested assistance from the social work department in finding a befriender for the child. She has been given advice as to how to apply for this, which does not require social work support.
20. The social worker carried out a social work assessment of the child’s needs in March 2007. She identified no continuing role for social work support and it is likely that her involvement will end very shortly.
21. In her written contribution to the social work assessment, the mother stated that respite care for the child was a gap in the services available to the family. Neither she nor the social worker has discussed this issue further.
22. The mother was concerned that the child had undiagnosed food intolerances or allergies. Following a referral by the family GP, the child was seen in July 2006 at a Children’s Hospital dietary clinic. Clinic staff gave the mother advice about food colourings but recommended no further action beyond that. School staff has seen no evidence of adverse reactions to food.
23. In 2006 the child was referred to a Consultant Paediatrician at a Children’s Hospital, for assessment. Following investigation and review, in March 2007 the Doctor concluded: that the child’s behaviour is better controlled in the more structured environment of the school than at home; that the child has traits such as difficulties with attention and listening skills and social naiveté that may be found in children with both autistic spectrum disorders and attention deficit disorders; but that the symptoms were not significant enough to qualify for a diagnosis.
24. The doctor suggested a trial of Ritalin medication for the child. The mother did not agree with this. As a result the doctor has referred the child to the Child and Family Mental Health Service for further assessment. The child has yet to receive an initial appointment with this service.

6. Reasons for Decision

The Tribunal considered all the evidence, both oral and in written form. We were satisfied that there was sufficient available evidence to the Tribunal to reach a fair decision on the Reference.

6.1 Deemed Failure

The mother asked the education authority to assess the child for a CSP in April 2006. The education authority conceded that, although informal discussions may have taken place during which the mother was advised of their view that a coordinated support plan was not required, she had not received formal notice of the decision that a CSP was not required until October.

The solicitor for the appellant did not suggest any specific actions that the Tribunal might now require the education authority to undertake as a result of their failure. For the education authority, the solicitor accepted that there was no excuse for internal misunderstanding and assured the Tribunal that it occurred only in the context of early steps to implement the new legislation.

The Tribunal considered that there had been a formal failure to assess and viewed this as regrettable. Nevertheless, an assessment process had taken place as a result of which a decision had been reached and implemented. Given that and the level of communication now in place, we were satisfied that there was no action we should now require the education authority to take to rectify the situation.

6.2 Requirement for a CSP: Submissions

It was accepted that: the child  has additional support needs; these needs are likely to continue for more than a year; and the education authority is responsible for the child’s school education. The issues in dispute were whether the child had additional support needs arising from one or more complex factors or alternatively multiple factors, and whether these needs required significant additional support to be provided by any non-education local authority service or by any appropriate agency.

The appellant’s solicitor submitted that the child’s additional support needs encompassed the impact of the mother’s health on the child. The child needed more input from health services in the sense that it had not yet been demonstrated that he didn’t need more input. The Social Work Department should be providing the services such as respite care and befriending that the mother had asked for, as the child had difficulties with his peers. The young carers’ project is run by a voluntary society, but such services are frequently provided by local authorities. The child may have ADHD. Taken together, all these factors were likely to have a significant adverse effect on the child’s school education and require significant additional support, when significance was measured in terms of impact on the child

The authority’s solicitor argued that the child’s additional support needs were school-based and were being addressed successfully by the strategies put in place by the school. The education authority had had regard to the statutory Code of Practice in considering the child’s needs. There was currently no factor outwith school that was having a significant adverse effect on the child’s school education. Nor were multiple factors significantly affecting his progress. The issues of transport and housing arose directly from the mother’s exercise of her right to make a placing request, and there was no evidence that they were affecting the child educationally. Neither the Social Work Department nor any appropriate agency was providing significant additional support.

The Tribunal raised the question of whether such support could be “required” in terms of section 2(1)(d) of the Act even if it was not actually being provided at present. The appellant’s solicitor considered this to be possible: the point of the CSP might be to coordinate planning ahead. The authority’s solicitor considered we should be slow to review the exercise of discretion by social work or health services.

6.3 Decision

1. We are satisfied that the child needs additional support to benefit from school education (s.1(1) of the 2004 Act). He requires and is receiving additional support in school to access the curriculum and to assist him in peer relations.
2. All the evidence indicated that these needs are longstanding and are likely to continue into the foreseeable future, and certainly for more than a year (s.2(1)(c)).
3. There was no dispute that the education authority are responsible for the child’s school education (s.2(1)(a)).
4. We have considerable difficulty in determining whether the child has additional support needs arising from complex factors (s.2(2)(b)(i)). A factor is complex if “it has or is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the school education of the child or young person” (s.2(2)(a)). The school have been providing additional support to meet the child’s identified needs for at least 18 months, and he is currently making very good educational progress.
5. The term “significant” is also used in section 2(1)(d), where it has been defined by contrast to “insignificant” or “not requiring attention”, and where it is stated that significance “should be judged by reference to its anticipated impact on the child”. There was no evidence before us from which we could reach a view as to the significance of the impact on the child of the additional supports he has received for some time. Since the education authority has considered it necessary to keep a range of supports in place for at least 18 months in order to address the child’s  identified needs, it may be that on that basis alone these needs fulfils the “complex factors” criterion.
6. We do not, however, consider that the child has additional support needs arising from multiple factors. It was not suggested to us that the factors identified by the education authority and being addressed through measures put in place by the school were of themselves “multiple”. It is therefore necessary to consider whether there are other factors that, when taken together with the child’s learning and relationship needs, might have a significant adverse effect on his school education.
7. As the Code of Practice makes clear at p.50-51 and elsewhere, family circumstances and personal barriers to learning may well constitute relevant “factors” in terms of section 2(1)(b). There have certainly been occasions in the past, such as when the mother was ill in 2004, when extrinsic factors have clearly exercised an adverse impact on the child’s educational progress. As things stand at present, however, there is no indication that any factors other than the child’s learning and relationship needs are having or are likely to have any adverse impact on his educational progress.
8. The child is aware of his mother’s health needs but there is no evidence that he has to undertake additional duties that impede his education or that he is adversely affected by anxiety. Having been involved for over a year, the child’s social worker sees no further requirement or role for social work support. There was no evidence from which we could deduce any link between the mother’s requests for befriending or respite services on the one hand, and factors affecting the child’s educational progress on the other. Medical investigations to date have been, at best, inconclusive. The issue of school transport arises from the mother’s placing request and, in any event, the child appears to cope well with his travel to and from school. We have little doubt that up to March 2007, the child’s tiredness as a result of excessive out-of-school activities was adversely affecting his education. The remedy to that problem lay within the mother’s control. The problem has now been resolved and, in our view, it is no coincidence that the child is now making better progress than ever in school.
9. We are also satisfied that the child’s needs do not require significant additional support to be provided either by the education authority in the exercise of any of its other functions, or by any appropriate agency (s.2(1)(d)). The Social Work Department have offered support over the last 15 months or so, none of which bears directly on factors relating to the child’s school education. They do not propose to offer any further support and we heard nothing that would allow us to take a different view. The doctor’s lengthy assessment of the child has produced neither a clear diagnosis nor any ongoing treatment plan. We did not consider that his onward referral of the child to the Child and Family Mental Health Service could of itself indicate a requirement for significant additional support related to the child’s educational progress. We had no basis for speculating as to the outcome of further assessment in terms of diagnosis, treatment plan or likely impact on the child’s school education. The young carers’ project is not provided by either the local authority or an appropriate agency and the appellant’s solicitor suggestion that the support it provides should count in terms of section 2(1)(d) since other local authorities do provide such services is not worthy of further discussion.
10. In summary therefore, we are clear that the child’s additional support needs do not arise from multiple factors in terms of section 2(1)(b)(ii). We are prepared to accept that they do arise from a complex factor in terms of section 2(1)(b)(i). Even if they do, however, we are satisfied on the evidence that his needs do not require significant additional support from outwith the education authority in terms of section 2(1)(d). We therefore confirm the education authority’s decision that the child does not require a coordinated support plan.