ASNTS_D_17_2012_07.09.12

 

 

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

 

Reference:      D_17_2012                

 

Gender:           Male

                       

Aged:               12                   

 

Type of Reference:     Placing Request         

 

 

 

 

1. Reference

The appellant,  lodged a reference under section 18(3)(da) of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, as amended by the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2009 (hereinafter called “the 2004 Act”) against a decision by the Respondent (“the authority”) confirmed in writing on 20 March 2012 to refuse a placing request made by the appellant in respect of her son, The Child, born 2000.

 

2. Decision of the Tribunal

The Tribunal confirms the decision of the authority and refuses the request to place The Child at School A (“School A”).

The Tribunal confirms the decision of the authority in exercise of its powers under section 19(4A)(a) of the 2004 Act being satisfied––

(i) that one or more of the grounds specified in paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2 to the said 2004 Act exist or exists;

and

(ii) that in all the circumstances it is appropriate to do so.

The decision of the Tribunal is unanimous.

 

3. Preliminary and Procedural Issues

A pre‑hearing case conference call was conducted on 2 August 2012 and a number of motions to submit late reports and to request an additional, or alternative, witness were decided by the convener or the tribunal in the period between this date and the date of the hearing.  A convener direction was issued on 2 August 2012.

The following matters were addressed in the case conference call, in the period leading up to the hearing and at the hearing:

(i)     The authority was permitted to lead evidence from one additional witness.  The appellant was permitted to lead evidence from one additional witness and was later permitted to countermand this witness, preferring to lead evidence from social work Team Leader.

(ii)    Both parties were permitted to lodge late a range of documents and reports, before the hearing and at the hearing, including a short DVD of The Child engaged in certain ritualised behaviours; in terms of rule 30(4) of The Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2006 and 2010, (hereinafter called “the Rules”).

(iii)    The convener directed that a report be prepared setting out the child’s views in relation to the subject matter of this reference.

(vi)   The convener directed that the respondent lodge a brief report setting out details of the capacity and current vacancies at School A.

(vii)   Finally, it was agreed that the authority would lead evidence first.

 

The following matters of procedure arose in the course of the hearing:

1. 1. Parents’ lodged a written statement midway through the hearing on day two.  The content of this disclosed that they now preferred to make a placing request for School D, setting out their reasons for this.  As a matter of competence, the convener invited the appellant to consider whether she continued to insist on the reference before the Tribunal, which was to consider the refusal of the authority to grant a placing request for School A.  Being mindful that the appellant’s representative was not legally qualified, and in keeping with the overriding objective of the Tribunal in terms of rule 3 of the Rules, the convener explained the parameters of the Tribunal.  Both parties were provided with a copy of section 19 of the 2004 Act, which sets out the powers of the Tribunal in relation to a reference.
   2. After a period of adjournment the appellant confirmed that she wished to continue with her reference.  She remained of the view that School A was a suitable place for The Child, despite her preference for School D.
   3. Appellant Representative and Parents’, in their written statement, attempted, after the authority’s witnesses had been heard, to raise new points of evidence which had either not been put to witnesses or which could not be tested.  Where this occurred the Tribunal could attach no weight to these statements.  These matters were not considered to be of material significance to merit the recalling of witnesses.
   4. Appellant Representative, in her written closing submissions, sought to address the tribunal on matters of opinion which were not explored with any of the witnesses.  Where this occurred the Tribunal could attach no weight to these statements.
   5. Finally, Respondent Representative sought the leave of the Tribunal after the hearing of evidence had been concluded, to refer to new evidence relative to The Child’ exclusion, in his written submission.  The convener refused this request considering that it would defeat the interests of justice to permit this and noting that the Tribunal had sufficient evidence before it to determine the reference.

 

4. Summary of evidence

The Tribunal considered the lengthy bundles of evidence which are recorded at T1-26, A1-167, and R1-169.  These included those documents lodged late,  the case statement for the authority and the appellant, the written statement of Parents’, lodged on the second day of the hearing and written submissions.

The Tribunal heard oral evidence over two days from the following:

(i)     Parents;

(ii)    Witness A, Depute Head Teacher, School B Primary School;

(iii)    Witness B, Additional Support for Learning Manager, School C

(iv)   Witness C, Head Teacher, School A

(v)    Witness D, Social Worker

(vi)   Witness E, Clinical Psychologist

(vii)   Witness F, social work Team Leader

 

Child’s views

Ms L, independent mediator, prepared a report on the child’s views following the direction of the convener to this effect [T23-26].  This process was completed on 10 and 13 August 2012.  The Child’ views at that time were that he liked School C because it is a big school and he already knew two people and made friends with two others.  The Child was asked if he would “like to go to an autistic school where there would be others just like The Child with autism”, to which he replied that he would like to go to a school with others just like him like at School A.  He said “..they would be able to help me.. …understand things better”.

 

5.       Findings in Fact

 

1. The Child was born in 2000.  He resides with his mother, the appellant, his father, and his older sibling who is aged 14 years.
2. The Child was diagnosed with asperger’s syndrome by Witness E, Clinical Psychologist, in June 2007, following a referral to the child and adolescent mental health team (CAMHS) in October 2006, due to concerns regarding his behaviour.
3. The Child’ cognitive skills are within the normal range and he is able to manage academic work pitched to his age and peer group.
4. The Child has additional support needs arising from his Asperger’s syndrome.
5. The factors giving rise to The Child’ additional support needs are rigidity in thinking, difficulties with transitions, concentration, reciprocal social interactions and controlling and ritualised behaviour.  The Child also has a tendency to run away or wander off from school.
6. The factors giving rise to The Child’ additional support needs have had a significant impact on his school life and his out of school life.  These result in challenging behaviours which significantly intrude upon the quality of The Child’ life and upon the quality of parents and sibling’s life.
7. The Child requires significant support and assistance in school in order to benefit from education.
8. The authority is responsible for The Child’ school education.
9. The Child attended School B Primary School (School B), which is a mainstream primary school, during his primary school years.
10. After the school summer break in 2011, The Child was unable to return to School B due to an overwhelming drive to perform ritualised behaviours and to control others. 
11. An emergency referral was made to School E Special School, which supports young people with mental health problems, in November 2011 and The Child began a programme with them in December 2011.
12. On 11 September 2011 the appellant made a residential placing request for The Child to be placed at School D, which was refused by the authority on 9 November 2011.
13. Following completion of a multi agency reintegration plan, The Child returned to School B after the school Easter break in April 2012.
14. The Child has been a pupil at School C Inclusion Resource since 15 August 2012.
15. School C is a mainstream high school which provides extra support to pupils through an inclusion resource.  The inclusion resource is a facility for pupils from secondary 1 to leaving age who have significant additional support needs arising from moderate learning difficulties and/or language and communication difficulties. 
16. There are an additional 10 pupils to The Child, who attend the inclusion resource.  Each of the pupils who attend the inclusion resource have either high functioning autism or Asperger’s or have a specific language or communication difficulty. 
17. The inclusion resource is staffed by learning assistants and support for learning teachers, who are experienced and trained in the delivery of education to children with additional support needs.
18. School C has 8 faculties.  The inclusion resource employs four support for learning teachers, who between them, attend all school faculty meetings to update class teachers and to share information between the inclusion resource and mainstream classes.  Following the sharing of information a decision is taken on whether support needs to be increased to a pupil.
19. The Child is provided with a range of individual educational supports, through the inclusion resource, by School C.  These include an escort and transport to school by taxi, registration classes in the inclusion resource base, a visual timetable, the support of a learning assistant in classes, the support and supervision of a learning assistant during the transition between classes, the use of “time out” cards, departure from classes 2 to 3 minutes earlier than the remainder of the class; and speech and language therapy (SLT) intervention when necessary. 
20. The Child is the only pupil in the inclusion resource who requires a learning assistant with him at all times.
21. Since 15 August 2012 The Child has had a number of difficulties at School C, which include an incident on 27 August 2012 when The Child ran away from school with another pupil.  The Child was eventually physically restrained by PC S. 
22. On 30 August 2012 The Child was expelled from School C for a week for reasons unknown to the Tribunal.
23. The authority are able to make provision for The Child’ additional support needs at School C. 
24. The appellant made a second placing request in 2012 (date unknown) for The Child to be placed at School A.
25. A Professional Assessment Group (PAG) – a multi disciplinary panel of advisers with specialist knowledge of autism and specific language - considered the placing request made by the appellant for School A on 13 March 2012, and made recommendations to the authority that The Child was suitable for an inclusion resource and unsuitable for School A due to his higher cognitive ability.
26. The authority accepted the recommendations of the PAG and refused the placing request on 20 March 2012.
27. School A is a special school for primary and secondary age pupils.  School A makes educational provision for pupils with social communication difficulties, almost all of whom have a diagnosis of autism.  Most if not all of the pupils have a cognitive difficulty and work at early and first levels of the Curriculum for Excellence, which is at primary 3 to 4 school age ability.  The school is divided between two buildings on the same campus, as described in the case statement of the respondent (R7 to R15).  Each classroom provides for a maximum of 6 pupils.
28. The current secondary 1 cohort of 12 pupils at School A is divided across two classes.  Each of these 12 pupils are very autistic, working at cognitive levels around primary 3 to 4 school age.
29. There is currently no opportunity to access subject choices at School A. 
30. Pupils at School A are placed in classes, according to their age and in the correct year group.
31. There are no vacancies at School A, at secondary 1 level.
32. There is one vacancy at primary 1 to primary 2 stage, one vacancy at primary 2 to primary 4 stage, one vacancy at primary 7 stage, one vacancy at secondary 3 stage and one very likely vacancy at secondary 4 stage.
33. There is no opportunity for a very able secondary 1 pupil to be placed into a secondary 3 or 4 class at School A.
34. If The Child was placed at School A he would be placed in chronologically age appropriate classes, none of which are suitable for The Child’ cognitive ability and aptitude.
35. School A is not suited to the ability or aptitude of The Child.
36. The national conditions of service for teaching staff (“The Yellow Book”) specifies that the teacher to pupil ratio for a special school for language and communication difficulties should be no more than 1 teacher to 6 pupils.
37. Placing The Child in a chronologically age appropriate class at School A would exceed the current class maximum number of children from 6, to 7 and would necessitate the employment of an additional teacher.
38. The authority are unable to find a secondary school teacher qualified to teach more than one of the specialist subjects on the timetable.
39. The authority are able to employ a primary school teacher at a cost of £40,787 per annum, which would be inadequate to address the educational needs of The Child.
40. A number of classrooms in School A, which The Child would attend if placed there, have physical space restrictions and there is no physical space to create an additional classroom.  The only alternative to this would be to install a temporary unit.  This would result in a cost to the authority of no less than £100,000.
41. The Child does not require the specialist education provided at School A in order to benefit from school education.
42. The Child does not have the additional support needs requiring the special facilities provided at School A.
43. It is not reasonable, having regard to the respective suitability and the respective cost of School C and School A to place The Child in School A .

 

6.       Submissions for the Appellant

The Tribunal was invited to overturn the refusal of the placing request by the authority, on the grounds that the circumstances which the authority relied upon to refuse the request were not met.  Specifically that the duty to grant the placing request did not apply in terms of schedule 2 paragraph 2 because of those matters set out in schedule 2 paragraph 3(1)(a)(i) and (v) and paragraph 3(1)(b) and (d) of the 2004 Act.  If the Tribunal was nevertheless satisfied on those matters, the appellant invited the Tribunal to exercise its discretion, it being appropriate to do so, and to grant the placing request made by the appellant.

Appellant Representative, set out her submissions in writing.  She submitted that School C is not suitable and cannot meet The Child’ additional support needs.  She submitted that School A is suited to the age, ability and aptitude of The Child and that The Child has the additional support needs requiring the education and specialist facilities normally provided at School A.  She invited the Tribunal to prefer the evidence of Witness E over that of Witness C.  She reminded the Tribunal that Witness C has not met The Child, whereas Witness E has known The Child professionally since the age of 6 years and has had regular clinical contact with him since then.  Witness E was broadly in support of the placing request for School A and specifically in favour of identifying a suitable educational environment for The Child.

 

7.       Submissions for the Respondent

The authority relied on schedule 2, paragraph 3(1)(a)(i) and (v) and paragraph 3(1)(b) and (d) of the 2004 Act in inviting the Tribunal to uphold the decision to refuse the placing request.

Respondent Representative invited the Tribunal to confirm the respondent’s decision to refuse the placing request in terms of section 19(4A)(a) of the 2004 Act.  He invited the Tribunal to prefer Witness C’s evidence over that of Witness E.  He submitted that Witness E’s evidence regarding the provision at School A was vague in parts and overall did not demonstrate a good knowledge of the educational provision.  He submitted that the evidence of Witness F could be of no assistance to the Tribunal in terms of the suitability of School A or in terms of the suitability of School C.  Respondent Representative remarked that the concerns expressed by Witness F for The Child’ welfare were being treated very seriously.  However, he submitted, these were not relevant for the purposes of deciding whether or not to grant the placing request.

 

8.       Reasons for Decision

1. The Tribunal considered all the written and oral evidence and written submissions.  It is not practical, appropriate or necessary to narrate every aspect of the evidence in this written decision. 

The statutory provisions

2. Section 22 of the 2004 Act states that schedule 2 makes provision about placing requests in relation to children and young persons with additional support needs.  Schedule 2 of the 2004 Act deals with the authority’s duties to comply with a placing request.
3. Paragraph 2 of schedule 2 of the 2004 Act relates to the duty to comply with placing requests.  Paragraph 3 of schedule 2 of the 2004 Act, provides a list of circumstances in which the duty does not apply.  Section 19(4A) of the 2004 Act states the power of the Tribunal and the two‑stage test which the Tribunal must apply:

“(4A)    Where the reference relates to a decision referred to in subsection (3)(da) of that section the Tribunal may—

(a) confirm the decision if satisfied that––

(i)  one or more grounds of refusal specified in paragraph 3(1) or (3) of schedule 2 exist or exists, and

(ii)  in all the circumstances it is appropriate to do so,

(b) overturn the decision and require the education authority to—

(i)  place the child or young person in the school specified in the placing request to which the decision related by such time as the Tribunal may require, and

(ii)  make such amendments to any co-ordinated support plan prepared for the child    or young person as the Tribunal considers appropriate by such time as the Tribunal may require.”

4. In the first stage, the Tribunal requires to determine whether it is satisfied that the authority has established that one or more grounds of refusal as provided for within schedule 2, Paragraph 3(1), of the 2004 Act exist or exists.  If the Tribunal is satisfied that one or more grounds exist or exists, then the Tribunal requires to move to the second stage.  In this case, the authority relies on schedule 2, Paragraph 3(1)(a)(i)and (v) and paragraph 3(1)(b) and (d):

“3(1) The duty imposed by sub‑paragraph (1) or, as the case may be, sub‑paragraph (2) of paragraph 2 does not apply––

(a) if placing the child in the specified school would––

(i)     make it necessary for the authority to take an additional teacher into employment,

…..

(v) be likely to be seriously detrimental to the educational well-being or pupils attending the school, ..

…..

1. 2. if the education normally provided at the specified school is not        suited to the age, ability or aptitude of the child

  ….

(d)  if, where the specified school is a school mentioned in paragraph 2(2)(a) or (b), the child does not have additional support needs requiring the education or special facilities normally provided at that school     …..”

5. In the second stage, the Tribunal must exercise its discretion and determine whether, in all the circumstances, it is appropriate to confirm the authority’s decision.  In this case, the appellant argues that in all the circumstances The Child should be placed in School A.
6. The onus is on the authority to establish that one or more of the grounds exist or exists and to satisfy the Tribunal that in all the circumstances it is appropriate to confirm the decision of the authority. 

 

The first stage

Ground of refusal: paragraph 3(1)(a)(i): necessity for an additional teacher

7. Respondent Representative set out in detail, in his case statement, the teacher to class size ratio in special schools, which includes School A.  Witness C is the Head Teacher at School A.  She has 37 years of teaching experience.  She has been Head Teacher at School A for 5 years.  She has been an additional support needs teacher for 25 years, 16 of these in the autism field.  She holds a Masters in Autism and Asperger’s, which she obtained in 2002. She confirmed that the detail of the authority’s case statement was correct.  She confirmed that the class sizes were necessarily restricted to a maximum of 6 pupils to a class teacher, in order to meet the special needs of the pupils.  This complies with the terms of the national conditions of service for teaching staff, commonly known as “The Yellow Book”, which specifies the teacher to pupil ratio in a special school for language and communication.  Witness C advised that if a class size was to be increased beyond 6 pupils, to 7, to accommodate The Child in a secondary 1 class, an additional teacher would be necessary to maintain the class teacher to pupil ratios. She confirmed that there are presently no vacant places in the secondary 1 classes at School A.

Ground of refusal: paragraph 3(1)(a)(v): seriously detrimental to the educational well-being of pupils

1. 8. Witness C explained the composition of the classes and the ability of the pupils at School A, who are in the majority working at the early and first levels of the Curriculum for Excellence.  She formed the view that the adjustments which would be necessary to place The Child at School A, including the employment of an additional teacher, would cause disruption to existing classes and would be consequently seriously detrimental to the educational well-being of the pupils attending School A.
   9. Respondent Representative set out in detail, in his case statement, the physical layout of School A and each of the classes.  Witness C confirmed that this was an accurate description of the layout.  She expressed a view that  School A does exceptionally well with the physical environment they have, however, this is not autism specific.  She advised that it was not as simple as bringing an additional teacher in where a class size is exceeded by the current maximum of 6.  She explained that the physical class sizes were not easy to adapt and that resources were focused on a class size of 6, for example, 6 cookers in the home economics class. 
   10. Respondent Representative submitted that the authority would require to spend a minimum of £100,000 to add to the school’s accommodation by building a temporary classroom.  No objection was taken to this figure.

Ground of refusal: paragraph 3(1)(b): not suited to age, ability or aptitude of the child

11. Witness C explained that she sits on the PAG and that she considered the placing request made by Parents’ for School A.  Witness C has not met The Child.  However, she confirmed that she read all of the reports and documents which were part of the Tribunal’s papers, for the PAG, and before this hearing.  She had also met with the Appellant on two occasions.  Witness C formed the view that School A was not suitable for The Child.  She considered his history of mainstream primary education and his higher levels of cognitive ability, together with his diagnosis and his additional support needs arising from this, before reaching this view.  Witness C’s opinion was that The Child should be educated within a mainstream secondary provision.  She confirmed that the PAG’s recommendation was that The Child should receive his secondary education in a mainstream setting with an inclusion resource.  She remained of this view.
12. Witness C explained that there were no pupil places available at School A in the current secondary 1 class.  She advised that pupils in School A are placed according to chronological age.  She confirmed that it would not be appropriate to place a very able secondary 1 age child in a secondary 3 class, where there is currently a vacancy.

Ground of refusal: paragraph 3(1)(d): child does not have the additional support needs requiring the education or special facilities normally provided

13. School A is a special school. It provides education to pupils with additional support needs, who have autism or asperger’s.  School A does not offer social or family supports.
14. Witness C explained that the pupils at School A had more challenging autistic behaviours than The Child.  She commented that the stress which The Child presently experiences in school would not be likely to be removed by his attendance at School A.  She was of the view that The Child may find the autistic pupils at School A more challenging, which could cause him to become more stressed at school.  If The Child is more stressed at school, she expressed concern that he could be more difficult at home.
15. Witness E, who is a Clinical Psychologist, working with the CAMHS team,  expressed surprise at the view taken by Witness C.  He has known The Child since the age of around 6 years.  He formally diagnosed The Child and has remained professionally involved with him since that time.  He commented that The Child’ ritualistic and rigid behaviours have now increased to the extent that he is unable to attend clinics for his appointments with Witness E.  He described The Child’ behaviours as more likely to fall now within autistic levels. 
16. Witness E was of the opinion that the educational setting was more important than the higher cognitive ability of The Child at this time.  He acknowledged that he had not spoken with Witness C in relation to this placing request.  He had not visited the school or assessed it for its suitability in the context of a placing request for The Child.  He based his opinion that School A would offer a more appropriate educational environment for The Child on his knowledge of other CAMHS patients who were pupils at School A.  He could not comment on the suitability or otherwise of School C.  He had no direct experience of the strategies employed by the learning support staff at School C. 
17. Where their evidence conflicted, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of Witness C.  She was able to assess The Child’ needs within the specific context of educational provision at School A.  She had the necessary qualifications and experience to reach an informed opinion on this. 
18. Witness B is the Additional Support for Learning Manager at School C. She has 26 years of teaching experience, which includes additional support for learning.  She has worked closely with pupils who have asperger’s.  She was confident, despite the difficulties encountered at School C since The Child’ placement commenced on 15 August 2012, that School C could continue to support The Child and to allow him to benefit from education.  She referred to the range of supports which School C has in place, which are described in the statements of fact.  She accepted that these had been insufficient to prevent the incident which occurred on Friday 27 August 2012 and that there was a failure in the process of supervision.  She advised that this has been addressed.
19. The tribunal was advised that The Child had been excluded from school on the second day of the hearing (30 August 2012).  Respondent Representative confirmed on 7 September 2012, that a place nevertheless remained at School C for The Child and that the plan to return The Child to School C would be discussed at a forthcoming meeting with Parents.
20. The Tribunal was satisfied on the evidence, that each of the four grounds for refusal had been satisfied.

 

The second stage

21. Having established that one or more grounds for refusal exist, the Tribunal required to move to the second stage of the test, namely, whether or not it is satisfied that in all the circumstances it is appropriate to confirm the decision of the authority.
22. The Tribunal heard a collective concern for The Child’ welfare, from Witness D, who is The Child’ Social Worker, Witness F, who is the social work Team Leader and Witness E.  This was presented within the context of the placing request and The Child’ educational needs.  However it was clear that there were broader and material concerns arising from The Child’ behaviours, which impact significantly on The Child’ home life and on his relationships with his parents and his older sibling. 
23. There was no dispute that Parents were considerably distressed and concerned for The Child’s education and that they were experiencing significant difficulties at home in continuing to manage The Child’s fixed and ritualised behaviours.  Witness D supported the placing request.  She was concerned that if The Child was not able to realise his potential he would be increasingly unable to access education. However, although she had a combined range of university qualifications and experience in secondary school education and social work, she had no additional support needs teaching experience and no direct experience of School A.  Although she appeared to know the history of the facts and circumstances of The Child’ home and school life well, she could not comment on events from December 2011 onwards.  She could not professionally comment on the suitability or otherwise of School A or School C. 
24. Witness F has been a qualified social worker since 2010.  She qualified in community education before that in 1981 and obtained a qualification in child protection in 1990.  She has had more recent contact with The Child and with his family.  However, like Witness D, she could not offer a professional view on the suitability or otherwise of School A or School C.  Indeed, when invited to comment on Witness C’s decision that School A was not appropriate for The Child, she responded that this was probably correct. 
25. Witness F advised that The Child had been excluded from School C on the morning of the second hearing.  She explained that Witness B had stated to her that School C could not keep him safe. 
26. All three witnesses for the appellant were united in their view that The Child needed additional supports in order to benefit from his school education and that if this was not met there would be a continuing and potentially disastrous effect on his family life and relationships.  Both social workers advised that there was a growing risk that The Child may require to be accommodated by the local authority on an emergency basis.
27. The Tribunal explored in some detail with Witness F the actions of the Child’s Plan set out in the Girfec report [A129]. She confirmed that she is the Lead Professional. The Plan sets out 12 actions, 4 of which are directly related to The Child’ school education.  The Tribunal was concerned to note that almost all of these actions had not been met.  Further observations are made in this respect at the end of this decision.

 

Conclusion

28. While acknowledging the significant concerns of parents and the witnesses for the appellant, together with those concerns recorded in the documents lodged, the Tribunal was not persuaded that School A would be an appropriate placement for The Child.  The Tribunal, having considered all of the circumstances of the case, did not consider it appropriate therefore to overturn the decision of the authority.
29. In the context of a reference of this nature, the Tribunal does not require to reach a formal determination on whether the existing educational placement is appropriate, although this may have a material bearing and influence on how the Tribunal ultimately decides the reference.  In The Child’s case it is clear that his early transition to School C has been fraught with difficulties.  Whether School C will be able to continue to meet The Child’ educational needs remains to be seen.  It is early days.  It remains the position of the authority that School C continues to be the most appropriate educational environment and that The Child’s additional support needs can be met and supported through the inclusion resource, in order for him to benefit from education.  The evidence of Witness B supports this position.
30. There was no doubt in the mind of Witness C that School A was unsuitable for The Child, even if a place was to have been available.  The Tribunal heard nothing which would detract from that opinion.  No other witness could speak with the authority and experience that Witness C has in relation to pupils with additional support needs, arising from a diagnosis of autism or Asperger’s, or of the educational provision at School A.
31. Finally, the Tribunal acknowledges the concerns of parents that The Child’s behaviour must be seen within the context of his additional support needs, arising from his diagnosis; and their concern that these be addressed in a therapeutic and supportive manner, rather than punitively.
32. The Tribunal is grateful to Appellant Representative and Respondent Representative for their assistance to the Tribunal. The Tribunal also wishes to thank Parents for their patience throughout the two days of hearing evidence and for The Appellant’s willingness to explain their position as The Child’s parents, in her own words, to assist the Tribunal in gaining further understanding into The Child’s skills and abilities and the demands of supporting and caring for The Child. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Further Observations 

The Tribunal makes these further observations:

1. The report prepared by School E [A68 to A84], sets out details of the approaches taken with The Child and the strategies which worked with him.  There was agreement that The Child had benefited from his time at School E.  It was however unclear the extent to which School B had fully embraced these strategies, or the extent to which School C is employing these strategies.  The Tribunal is of the view there would be an evident benefit to The Child if these strategies were to be fully employed within his educational provision.
2. The Child’s Plan sets out 12 actions, the majority of which have not been commenced or completed.  The Tribunal is significantly concerned that this remains the case, particularly in the context of The Child being at increasing risk of being accommodated by the Local Authority.  The Tribunal is of the view there would be an evident benefit to The Child and to his family, were these actions to be commenced and completed, timeously.
3. The Tribunal was encouraged to note that Parents recognise the value to The Child of a CSP.  Respondent Representative confirmed that the request for a CSP is being considered.  The Tribunal is of the view that this would be of benefit to The Child, in identifying his educational objectives and in ensuring these are appropriately coordinated and delivered.
4. There is undoubtedly considerable strain placed on Parents at this time.  The provision of respite has been referred to by agencies.  Witness F confirmed that this has been discussed with Parents.  The Tribunal is of the view that regular and consistent respite to Parents is essential to reduce the risk of The Child being accommodated and to alleviate the considerable strains being placed on The Child and his family.  The link between home and school has a significant bearing on The Child and on his educational development.