ASNTS_D_15_2012_27.04.12

 

 

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

 

Reference:      D_15_ 2012               

 

Gender:           Male

                       

Aged:               11                   

 

Type of Reference:                 Placing Request

 

 

 

 

 

1. Reference

 

 (“the Appellant”) lodged a reference in terms of section 18(4)(a) of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 (“the Act”) on 24 February, 2012 on the basis that she disagreed with the decision of the Council (“the Education Authority”) to refuse a placing request in respect of her child, (“THE CHILD”), made in terms of the Act, Sch. 2, para 2(1) and in respect of School A.           

 

2. Decision of the Tribunal

 

In terms of section 19(4A)(b)(i) of the Act, the Tribunal overturns the decision of the Education Authority and requires it to place THE CHILD in School A,  by the beginning of the Autumn term for the session 2012/13, being presently 13 August, 2012 or such other date as the Education Authority may determine to be the start date of the Autumn term of said school

 

3. Preliminary matters

 

A telephone conference call was held between the Convener and the Parties’ representatives on 18 April, 2012 to ascertain the Parties’ preparedness for the hearing and to determine some preliminary matters. It was agreed that the Appellant would be permitted to lodge late a copy of a report from Education Scotland on School B, , there being no objection from the Education Authority; that evidence from Witness 1 would be by telephone call; that the Education Authority would lead its evidence first, followed by evidence from the Appellant.

 

At the hearing the Tribunal allowed the Education Authority to lodge a production late, there being no objection by the Appellant.

 

4. Summary of Evidence  

 

The Tribunal considered a substantial bundle of productions, including –

 

1. Appellant’s statement (A1 – A5),
2. Authority’s case statement (R12 – R19),
3. Report from Clinical Neuropsychologist, dated 7 February, 2012 (A19 – A28).
4. Report from Chartered Psychologist, dated 20 November, 2009 (A29 – A36)
5. Report from Educational Psychologist, dated 17 October, 2011 (A15 – A18; R80 – R83; T21 – T24)

 

In addition, the Tribunal heard evidence from five witnesses, being the Acting Head Teacher of School B, , the Head Teacher of School A, , THE CHILD’s current class teacher, a clinical psychologist and THE CHILD’s mother. The Tribunal received submissions from the Appellant’s representative and the Education Authority’s representative.   

 

5. Findings in Fact

 

1. THE CHILD is 11 years old, being born in 2000.
2. THE CHILD is an only child and resides with his parents.
3. THE CHILD was originally diagnosed in 2004 as having autism.
4. THE CHILD shows a very clear discrepancy between his verbal and non-verbal skills, with significant difficulties in terms of his verbal skills, but significant strengths in terms of his non-verbal skills. In particular, he shows strengths in perceptional reasoning when compared with the abilities of other children of the same age as THE CHILD.
5. THE CHILD does not meet the criteria for having a moderate learning difficulty (otherwise known as a global disability).
6. THE CHILD requires additional support with a differentiated curriculum and individualised support.
7. THE CHILD currently attends a language class within a primary school under the management of the Education Authority.
8. The Education Authority is responsible for THE CHILD’s school education.
1. The Appellant made a placing request to have THE CHILD placed at School A.
10. School A is a special school under the management of the Education Authority.
11. The Education Authority considered the placing request by means of a three stage process. First, it required reports to be obtained to provide an overview of THE CHILD’s development and an assessment of his educational needs. Second, this material was considered by two multi-disciplinary panels of advisers, PAG 3 and PAG 1. Third, the recommendations of these panels are submitted to the Education Authority for its consideration.
50. The Education Authority considered that statutory grounds existed for refusing the placing request and that there were not other grounds for the Education Authority to exercise its discretion to grant the placing request.
1000. The Education Authority intimated its decision of refusal by letter dated 13 January, 2012 to the Appellant. This letter and its subsequent Case Statement state three statutory grounds for the refusal. These are the grounds stated in paragraph 3(1)(a)(i),(ii) and (v) of Schedule 2 to the Act; namely, that the placement would “make it necessary for the authority to take an additional teacher into employment”; “give rise to significant expenditure on extending or otherwise altering the accommodation at or facilities provided in connection with the school”; and “be likely to be seriously detrimental to the educational well-being of pupils attending the school”. These grounds were stated to be in the alternative.
14. The Education Authority would require to employ an additional teacher if THE CHILD was placed at School A.

 

6. Submissions made by the Parties

 

The Education Authority lodged a detailed written summing up and submission. This was accepted into the bundle of documents before the Tribunal and therefore is referred to for its terms. The submission made two general themes: the suitability of School B and the unsuitability of School A; and the absence of a vacancy at School A.

 

The Appellant’s representative made a submission orally. She asserted that notwithstanding any statutory ground that may exist for refusal of the placing request that in the circumstances of this reference it was not appropriate for the Education Authority’s decision to be confirmed, all in terms of the Act, section 19 (4A)(a)(ii). She therefore confirmed that she requested the Tribunal to overturn the decision of the Education Authority and to place THE CHILD at School A.

 

She said that THE CHILD had been diagnosed with autism in 2004. She also stated that the various assessments lodged by the Appellant all confirmed that THE CHILD has significant challenges in language and communication and social interaction. She stated that there is a significant discrepancy between THE CHILD’s verbal and non-verbal skills.

 

She stated that THE CHILD does not have a global learning difficulty and that therefore School B is not appropriate for him. She stated that THE CHILD requires the type of education provision provided at School A; a specialised education which supports the needs of children with autism. School A provide specialist education in relation to social skills, social interaction and flexible thinking; all things from which THE CHILD would benefit.

 

The Appellant was disappointed that the Education Authority had not referred to the educational psychologist’s report prepared for it on THE CHILD in October 2011 (A15 – A18) and that of the two witnesses called by the Education Authority only one had any contact with THE CHILD and that only to observe him for 1 hour.

 

The Education Authority was given the opportunity to respond to this submission and advised the Tribunal that the Tribunal’s own Rules allow only two witnesses to be called by each Party, except with leave of the Tribunal or the Convener.

 

7. Reasons for decision.

 

General observations

 

In coming to a decision on this matter, the Tribunal has considered all evidence presented and all submissions made to it and is satisfied that no matter of relevance has been overlooked and that it had sufficient evidence before it to reach its decision.

 

Refusal of placing request

 

The Tribunal notes that the Act requires the Education Authority to place THE CHILD at the school requested, all in terms of paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Act unless the Education Authority can establish that one of the grounds specified in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Act apply.

 

The Tribunal also notes that the Education Authority specified three separate statutory grounds for refusing the placing request, all in terms of paragraph 3(1)(a)(i),(ii) and (v) of Schedule 2 to the Act; namely, that the placement would “make it necessary for the authority to take an additional teacher into employment”; “give rise to significant expenditure on extending or otherwise altering the accommodation at or facilities provided in connection with the school”; and “be likely to be seriously detrimental to the educational well-being of pupils attending the school”.

 

Employment of an additional teacher

 

The Tribunal heard evidence from Witness 2 that if THE CHILD was placed at School A an additional teacher would require to be employed. She referred to an extract from the “Yellow Book”; the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers; in support of that statement. She stated that pupils at School A would be categorised in terms of the SNCT as having “language and communication difficulties” and, as such, the number of pupils per teacher could not exceed 6. The Respondent confirmed that if the Tribunal overturned the decision of the Education Authority the Education Authority would employ an additional teacher at School A.

 

She also advised that previously the school did have a class of 7 pupils. She advised that she did not consider this number of pupils worked well because of the number of teachers and teaching support staff required also to be in the classroom (in that instance 4 teaching staff). She confirmed that the current school roll is 97, with there being 5 classes in the primary section of the school each class having 6 pupils and with there being 11 classes in the secondary section of the school, each class having 6 pupils. In addition there is another pupil who, although a pupil of School A, attends full-time another school because of the educational opportunities offered there.

 

The Tribunal accepts that it will be necessary to employ another teacher if THE CHILD is placed at School A. In considering this matter the Tribunal had regard to several factors. First, the status of the Yellow Book is unclear from the evidence presented. The Tribunal is, however, prepared to accept that the Yellow Book is, in effect, to be treated as an undertaking by the Education Authority to its teaching staff. Second, notwithstanding this, the Tribunal notes from Witness 2’s evidence that School A has previously exceeded the teacher: pupil ratio of 1:6. Third, the Tribunal therefore finds that, regardless of the status of the Yellow Book, the Education Authority has not previously fully complied with the Yellow book in its entirety. Fourth, on the evidence of Witness 2, if THE CHILD was placed at School A the overall number of pupils at the school next session would remain the same as at this term, due to other pupils leaving the school. Notwithstanding this, the Tribunal is satisfied that in relation to this reference, if THE CHILD is placed at School A that it is necessary for the Education Authority to employ an additional teacher.    

 

Appropriateness of confirming decision

 

The Tribunal is not persuaded that in all the circumstances it is appropriate to confirm the decision of the Education Authority on this basis. It has reached this decision for two main, but separate, reasons. It considers that in light of all the evidence submitted to it that School A would better meet the educational objectives for THE CHILD than School B. It also considers that School B is unlikely to provide an education best suited to the age, aptitude and abilities of THE CHILD, while taking account of his specific needs.   

 

In reaching this decision the Tribunal considered the reports lodged and oral evidence heard at the hearing. In particular, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of Witness 1 to that of the witnesses for the Education Authority. The Tribunal considers that Witness 1 was an impressive witness, giving her evidence in a careful and balanced manner, while making it abundantly clear that THE CHILD does not have moderate learning difficulties. (Witness 1 referred to the term “global learning disability” but confirmed that her use of that term is to be considered as synonymous with use of “moderate learning difficulty”.) The Tribunal notes that Witness 1 carried out a formal assessment of THE CHILD in line with current professional practice and, as noted below, the results are in accord with previous assessments. It also notes that, in terms of her report (A19 – A28, at A25):

 

“[f]rom this assessment, [THE CHILD] shows a very clear discrepancy between his verbal and non-verbal skills, with significant difficulties in terms of his verbal skills, but significant strengths in terms of his non-verbal skills. These findings are consistent with previous assessments and his diagnosis of autism, but do not indicate a global learning difficulty.”

 

In support of that conclusion, Witness 1 states (at A23):

 

“Scaled scores of 7 to 13 are considered to be across the broad average range on [the particular assessment conducted – the WISC-IV UK]. [THE CHILD] showed a range of scores from 1 to 16 on this test. He showed a very clear difference between his verbal and non-verbal skills…His verbal skills were all in the extremely low range in comparison to chronologically age matched peers (<0.1^st percentile). Age equivalents for verbal skills could not be calculated but were all below 6 years 0 months. [THE CHILD]’s non-verbal skills were in the superior range (95^th percentile).”

 

This finding is confirmed from the appendix to her report which confirms that THE CHILD’s verbal comprehension scored between 1 and 3 in the sub-tests conducted, whereas he scored between 12 and 16 in the sub-tests for perceptual reasoning.

 

The Tribunal notes that when Witness 1 was asked to consider the reports lodged by the Education Authority (R130-1; R 132-3) she stated that those reports were related to THE CHILD’s curriculum, whereas her report specifically assessed THE CHILD’s cognitive ability and determined that he is working in some areas at or above those of other children of his age or above. As such, THE CHILD does not fit within the diagnostic criteria for having a learning disability. Witness 1 confirmed that she had not assessed THE CHILD in a school setting, but she also advised that she did not consider this to be significant in that her report was considering THE CHILD’s cognitive abilities. The Tribunal also noted that Witness 1 stated that a child with learning difficulties should have uniform low scores throughout all assessments done, whereas THE CHILD had large discrepancies in the results, making the findings clinically significant.

 

The Tribunal noted Witness 1’s explanation that the range of scores provided in her report of THE CHILD meant that they should not simply be aggregated to give a total score, but should be considered as a range. By simply adding the sub-totals and obtaining an average score one would miss the sizeable differential in scores achieved. These range from THE CHILD’s verbal comprehension scores placing him in the lowest 0.1 percentile of his age equivalent peers, to his perceptual reasoning scores which placed him in the top 95 percentile of his age equivalent peers.

 

Witness 1 stated in her evidence-in-chief, and reiterated the same point under cross-examination, that these variations in scoring meant that THE CHILD did not have global learning difficulties, since he did not fit the diagnostic criteria for learning difficulties. Witness 1 continued that for THE CHILD to have global learning difficulties he would have to score low in assessments for adaptive functioning and score lower than his age equivalent peers for intellectual functioning. THE CHILD did not score low in intellectual functioning and so he does not have a global learning difficulty. 

 

Witness 1 advised that it was very important that THE CHILD’s teachers have a knowledge of autism and that THE CHILD receives a differentiated curriculum, which must relate to his strengths as well as his weaknesses. Witness 1 confirmed that THE CHILD does not require the use of assistive aids to communicate, in particular PECS (Picture Exchange Communication System). He would benefit from being in a class with a few pupils. 

 

Witness 1 confirmed that she had been provided with a copy of the report prepared by Dr. xx (A29 – A36) in preparation for her own report. She confirmed to the Tribunal that she agreed with that report and that her report was consistent with the earlier report, the one difference being that she did not aggregate the scores from the various sub-tests conducted to give a better indication of the range of THE CHILD’s strengths and weaknesses.

 

Having considered both reports and the evidence presented at the hearing, the Tribunal is of the opinion that both reports reach the same conclusion; namely, that THE CHILD has autism but does not have a global learning difficulty. For instance, in the report by Dr. xx (at A30) she states: “[THE CHILD] was diagnosed with autism when he was four years of age…there are no questions regarding his diagnosis.” The report continued (at A35): “[THE CHILD] presents with specific areas of weakness rather than a more generalised learning difficulty.” 

 

Witness 1 confirmed that she had been provided by the Appellant with a copy of all other assessments upon THE CHILD which had been lodged with the Tribunal by the Parties. She confirmed that her report was consistent with the previous assessments.

 

The Tribunal notes, for instance, that the report from Dr. yy (A8 – A9) states (at A9): “[u]sing the ADOS [Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule] scoring [THE CHILD] [is] at a level of an ADOS classification of autism.” It also notes from the report prepared by zz, educational psychologist employed by the Education Authority (A15 – A18; R80 – R83; T21 – T24) that: “[THE CHILD] has a diagnosis of ASD {autism spectrum disorder], and displays significant difficulties in language and communication and reciprocal social interaction.” (A16). The report continued: “[THE CHILD] shows particular strength in his perceptual reasoning…[THE CHILD] finds verbal comprehension a challenge…(A17). There is no mention within this report of THE CHILD having global learning difficulties.

 

The Tribunal also considered the documents lodged by the Education Authority. It notes from minutes of meetings of its PAGs (Professional Assessment Groups) that THE CHILD was previously considered not to have moderate learning difficulties. For instance, (at R164) for the PAG1 meeting of 28 March, 2011 it is minuted that:

 

“[a]gree on current evidence [THE CHILD] does not have moderate learning difficulties – 0n 75^th percentile for 2 items of perceptual reasoning and able to multiply in maths according to IEP.

 Agree uneven profile suggests autistic features.”

For the PAG 1 meeting of 6 June, 2011 it is minuted:

 

“[a]gree that [THE CHILD] is of average ability in some areas.

Agree the comparatively higher assessment scores cannot be achieved by accident.

Agree he does not have MLD [moderate learning difficulties] and he would benefit from being in a more challenging setting than his current setting.”

 

These conclusions are also evident from reports from THE CHILD’s class teacher, dated 4 October, 2011 (R89 – R92) and his head teacher, dated 7 October, 2011 (R94 – R95). In the former report, prepared for the Education Authority’s PAG, it states that THE CHILD has “a diagnosis of autism”. Although it mentions related difficulties it does not state that THE CHILD has global learning difficulties. Similarly, the latter report makes the same observation about autism, but makes no observation of global learning difficulties.

 

The Tribunal noted from the Individual Learning Plan for THE CHILD’s previous school, (R110 – R113) that he is stated to have autism “with associated” difficulties.

 

The Tribunal also noted from the Respondent’s Case Statement (R12 – R19) that the Education Authority’s PAG 3 had determined on 1 November, 2011 that THE CHILD “has moderate learning difficulties” and “[a]gree School A unsuitable” (R17). It also noted that the Education Authority’s PAG 1 minuted:

 

“Agree highly uneven profile – very low verbal results and above average non verbal results.

Agree he is functioning academically as a child with moderate learning difficulties – pro factor for moderate learning difficulties.

Agree there are children with similar needs in Woodlands and Pilrig Park.” (R18).”

 

The Tribunal noted the report from Witness 2 (R130 – R131) in which she said “[m]y observations of THE CHILD show that he is presenting as the boy I read about in the PAG papers.” (R131). In her oral evidence before the Tribunal Witness 2 stated that THE CHILD has difficulties with learning that other children presently at School A do not have. She gave as an example that when she observed THE CHILD during a verbalising and visualisation task he made a mistake when reading the 2 sentences given and went to the beginning again. This showed an underlying learning difficulty additional to autism. Witness 2 explained that this showed that THE CHILD did not have an overall understanding of the passage; it was the process of reading that was important to him, not the content of the material to be read.

 

The Tribunal also heard evidence from THE CHILD’s class teacher, Witness 3. She confirmed that she was not interviewed by Witness 2 as part of Witness 2’s observations of THE CHILD and that Witness 3 had no input in the subsequent report produced by Witness 2. She advised that THE CHILD’s practice of going back to the beginning of a passage to be read is a new development, since he did not do that previously, and indicated that he was doing this because he wanted to get things right.

 

The Tribunal considered that Witness 3 gave her evidence in a straight forward manner and that she clearly knew THE CHILD very well, having been his teacher for a year. She was able, for instance, to explain that THE CHILD was motivated by computer usage; that he can predict stories that he has been told already; he can read simple novels; navigate the internet; and that he is good at art, physical education, and typing. Witness 3 stated that THE CHILD does not require PECS.

 

The Tribunal also heard evidence from THE CHILD’s mother. She acknowledged that THE CHILD has difficulties, particularly with regard to speech and language. She advised that THE CHILD loves music. He is taking music lessons, having taken part in a concert in December and due to take part in another concert in June. He likes to go on holiday and on trips. He is not intimidated by new environments. She considers that School B is not suitable for THE CHILD because it is not a school dealing specifically with children who have autism. He does not need to use PECS. She considers that School B is an inappropriate environment for THE CHILD. 

 

Taking account of all the evidence presented, the Tribunal has decided that in all the circumstances it is appropriate to overturn the decision of the Education Authority on the basis that it was not satisfied that THE CHILD has moderate learning difficulties in addition to his autism. In that regard, it took account of the different evidences presented, but preferred the evidence of Witness 1 to that Witness 2 on the basis that Witness 1 had carried out a formal assessment and remained of the opinion in her oral evidence to the Tribunal that THE CHILD does not fit the diagnostic profile of having learning difficulties; only that he has autism. This finding of Witness 1 is consistent with other formal assessments of THE CHILD, including that carried out an educational psychologist employed by the Education Authority.  

 

Suitability of School A

 

The Tribunal also considered whether School A was suitable for THE CHILD. In that regard, it considered in particular the evidence of Witness 4 and Witness 2. Although the Tribunal notes that both teachers stated that not all the staff in their respective schools have qualifications specifically in relation to the teaching of autism, the Tribunal considered that overall THE CHILD’s educational well-being would be better secured by attending School A than School B. It noted from the report from Education Scotland (formerly HMI Education) (A102 – A109), dated 13 December, 2011, on School B that the school had agreed to “[d]evelop an appropriate curriculum to meet the entitlements for all young people” (A104) and that the curriculum was evaluated as being weak (A105). It accepts that Witness 4 is seeking to meet the matters specified in this report. It notes that from her evidence that some matters will be effected in the session 2012/13 and some will be longer objectives. It also notes from School B handbook (A60 – A102) that the school does not state that it is designed to meet the needs of children with autism (nor is there any mention of the two communication classes). Instead, it says (at A65) that it “meets the additional support needs of children and young people with significant and complex learning difficulties in the moderate to severe range.” By contrast, it notes from School A handbook (A49 – A59) that “[p]upils for whom School A is suitable are likely to require…a safe, secure and autism specific environment providing a highly structured and predictable routine.” (A51). It also states that the school will aim to “deliver a challenging curriculum so each pupil reaches his or her potential.” (A50).

 

 

 

 

 

Suitability of School B

 

The Tribunal also specifically considered the extent to which THE CHILD’s educational needs would be met by attendance at School B. In addition to the foregoing points, it also considered the evidence of Witness 4. The Tribunal was not satisfied from her evidence that the school would be able to provide an education best suited to the needs of children with autism. As an example of this, the Tribunal noted that Witness 4 was uncertain about the use of TEACCH in relation to teaching of children with autism. It also formed the conclusion from her answers to questions from the Tribunal that essentially her school was teaching a life skills class. While THE CHILD would benefit from such skills the Tribunal noted from Witness 1’s evidence (and other assessments) that THE CHILD’s cognitive abilities were in some matters equivalent to those of his age equivalent peers. As such, concentrating on a life skills class would not be appropriate. The Tribunal also noted that Witness 4 had yet to determine whether THE CHILD would attend within a class of his age related peers or a communications class, set up to deal with children who have communication difficulties. It notes that if THE CHILD attends the latter class THE CHILD would have no age related peers, his fellow pupils being up to fourth year of secondary education.   

 

In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that School A is better suited to THE CHILD than School B, given that it is established for the needs of children with autism and not children with global learning difficulties and that the ethos of the school is both supportive while providing a challenging curriculum; which is in accord with the recommendations from the report by Witness 1 and the other previous assessments.

 

Significant expenditure

 

The Tribunal was advised by the Education Authority in its Case Statement (R12 – R19) that if THE CHILD was placed at School A that “theoretically” it could extend or alter the accommodation or facilities at School A and that this would cost no less than £100,000. Witness 2 was asked but unable to say how capital budgets for such works are allocated by the Education Authority.

 

Witness 2 advised that there was no capacity within the school to alter it internally to create an additional classroom if that was required to accommodate THE CHILD. She did advise that a temporary building could be placed outwith the existing school building but that this would adversely affect the existing school pupils in that the school does not have a gym hall or dining hall large enough to accommodate all existing pupils and so bringing in more pupils would adversely affect the existing pupils.

 

The Tribunal concluded that the ground set out Schedule 2, paragraph 3(1)(ii) to the Act had not been established in that it was not clear that if THE CHILD was placed at School A that the Education Authority would incur significant expenditure on extending or otherwise altering the accommodation at or facilities provided in connection with the school. It is satisfied only that this is an option that may be considered by the Education Authority. It is stated in the Case Statement of the Education Authority that such expenditure is unlikely to be incurred, where the Education Authority states, in relation to the cost of any works of extension or alteration, that “the Education Authority would be unable to undertake such significant expenditure.” (R16).   

 

In so far as the Education Authority would incur such expenditure, the Tribunal was not provided with an itemisation of how the £100,000 had been calculated, other than the statements made in the Case Statement (at R16). The Tribunal was not provided with evidence upon which it could be satisfied that the expenditure would be significant, other than the Education Authority’s Case Statement to that effect. The Tribunal noted that School A is comprised of two buildings. It also noted, from Witness 2’s evidence, the report issued by HMI Education (R63 – R76) and from the self-assessment carried out by the Education Authority upon School A (R44 – R62), that the school, including that part of the school to which THE CHILD would be placed if this appeal to the Tribunal was successful, requires upgrading and that some works have been done in that regard. For instance, the HMI Education report, which was produced in 2007, noted that:“[t]he quality of accommodation and facilities was weak with some unsatisfactory aspects” (R70). This was required to be a min point of action arising from the report (R72). Overall, the accommodation and facilities were graded, on a six point grading, as second lowest with a grading of “weak” (R73). In the self-assessment report various matters are noted concerning the accommodation. For instance, in assessing the learning and teaching spaces there is noted a comment that:

 

“The school is not autism friendly. Various walls in our (primary building) [also the building where THE CHILD would attend if the placement was to that school] have been added on at various times and nothing is soundproofed.” (R45).

 

Witness 2 advised the Tribunal that improvements carried out to the school include replacement of windows and improvement of toilets, and that this is “a very, very slow process”.

 

Given the amount and range of work to be done to the school as highlighted in the HMI Education report and the self-assessment, in particular to that part of the school to which THE CHILD might be placed, the Tribunal is not satisfied that any expenditure which the Education Authority might incur in extending or otherwise altering the accommodation at or facilities provided in connection with the school would be significant.

 

Seriously detrimental to educational well-being

 

The Tribunal noted from Witness 2 that employing an additional teacher if THE CHILD was placed at School A or effecting extensions or alterations to the school would be seriously detrimental to the educational well-being of pupils attending the school. It also noted her evidence to the effect that when previously there were 7 pupils in a classroom this had an adverse effect on the pupils there because of the number of teaching staff required for the increased number of pupils.

 

The Tribunal also noted from the self-assessment that pupils’ education is already adversely affected by the school accommodation. For instance (at R45) the self-assessments notes that: “[m]any spaces are uncomfortable for users, with conditions which may inhibit or distract from learning and teaching.” It also noted (also at R45): “[t]he rooms are too small for an autism specific curriculum and there are no areas for private study. Our internal and external PE/games area can be freezing, even when the extremely noisy heaters are on.”  

 

In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the detriment of placing THE CHILD at School A is unlikely to be serious, when compared with the already stated problems that the existing accommodation has upon the pupils’ educational well-being. The Tribunal also had regard to the concern of Witness 2 that placing 7 pupils and 4 teaching staff in one class room was not conducive to the pupils’ educational well-being. The Tribunal is not satisfied that it follows that because this happened on one occasion that it would, or would be likely to, occur on another occasion.