DE
Reference: D_12_2011
Gender: Male
Aged: 13
Type of Reference: Placing Request
1. Reference
On 6 February 2011 the appellant made a placing request for her child to attend School A. The placing request was made under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning)(
On 21 April 2011, in accordance with section 18(1) and 18(3)(da) of the 2004 Act, the appellant referred the decision of the respondent to refuse the placing request to the Tribunal.
2. Decision of the Tribunal
The Tribunal confirms the decision of the respondents, in exercise of its power under section 19(4A)(a) of the 2004 Act. In terms of section 19(4A)(a)(i) of the 2004 Act, the Tribunal is satisfied that the ground of refusal specified in paragraph 3(1)(f) of Schedule 2 of the 2004 Act exists. In terms of section 19(4A)(a)(ii) of the 2004 Act, the Tribunal was also satisfied that in all the circumstances it is appropriate to confirm the decision.
3. Preliminary Issues
On 21 April 2011 the appellant requested a shortened case statement period. On 26 April 2011 an Order was issued reducing the case statement period to 27 May 2011 with a view to holding a hearing on 8 and 9 June 2011. On 28 April 2011 the respondent objected to this order on the basis that they would have difficulty responding in full by 27 May 2011. On 16 May 2011 the respondent requested that the hearing be postponed until July 2011 as a Complex Needs Assessment had just been requested and time was required to discuss the case with NHS Area. On 17 May 2011 the appellant objected to the case being postponed, the reasons including that the current provision for the child was inadequate and temporary, everyone involved was already aware of the child’s health and care needs, the child was suffering from low mood and the effects of the stress of uncertainty and he was anxious about the possibility of attending the school proposed by the respondent. These issues were discussed during a Conference Call on 23 May 2011 attended by the Convener, the appellant’s representative, the appellant and the respondent’s representative. On 27 May 2011 the Convener issued an Order specifying that the case statement period would be extended to end on 23 June 2011 and that the hearing would be postponed and would take place on 30 June and 1 July 2011.
On 8 June 2011 the appellant’s representative indicated that the child had decided that he would not attend the Tribunal. Following enquiry on behalf of the Convener, it was confirmed on 10 June 2011 that the appellant would like a child advocate to be appointed. On 13 June 2011 the Convener issued a Direction requesting that Independent Advocacy meet the child to obtain his views on his school provision and future school placement. An advocate met the child on two occasions in June 2011 and provided a written report which was inserted into the bundle at T54 to 59.
A conference call between the Convener, appellant’s representative and respondent’s representative took place on 27 June 2011. The appellant was also present. On 27 June 2011 the Convener issued a note of the conference call setting out the matters agreed and the order and approximate timing of the attendance of witnesses. The Convener also raised matters arising from the case statement and documentary evidence in the bundle of papers in relation to which clarification or submissions may be of assistance to the Tribunal. This included a request for clarification of whether or not the respondent was relying on the ground of refusal in paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 2 of the 2004 Act as well as the ground of refusal in paragraph 3(1)(f) of Schedule 2 of the 2004 Act. At the start of the hearing the respondent’s representative confirmed that the respondent was relying solely on the ground of refusal in paragraph 3(1)(f) of Schedule 2 of the 2004 Act.
Late papers were allowed as follows, without objection:
Respondent:
- Papers at LR85 to 159
- Replacement of R57 with R57 and 57a
Appellant:
- Papers at LA88 to 106
- The appellant submitted a written ‘Tribunal Statement’ dated 30 June 2011 prior to giving oral evidence
4. Summary of Evidence:
Documentary evidence was provided in the bundle of papers, including late papers.
Oral evidence was heard from the following witnesses, in the order listed:
- Witness A, Teacher, School C
- Witness B, Head Teacher, School A, by telephone
- Witness C, family friend
- Witness D, Registered Psychiatric Nurse and Family Therapist
- Appellant
5. Findings in Fact:
[1] The child was born in 1998 and is thirteen years old. He lives with his mother. He has a diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) with co-morbid anxiety and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). He is prescribed fluoxetine.
[2] The child attended School B from 2002 to 2009. During his first year at secondary school he was placed at School D. His last day there was in June 2010. He then attended the day service of the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) Team from August 2010 to April 2011, with outreach to School D until March 2011.
[3] School C is a local authority mainstream comprehensive secondary school. Specialist provision is being developed for children with ASD, to commence in August 2011. It is currently known as the HiFAB (High Functioning Autism Base). Approximately six boys with needs that arise from autism or ASD and who experience varying degrees of difficulty with peer and adult interactions in a mainstream school setting are due to start first year at School C in August 2011 and will attend the base. The HiFAB base will provide support in a small group setting and will be managed by specialist staff. Subject specialists will deliver lessons within the base but integration into mainstream classes will also be an option.
[4] The appellant was informed of the proposals for the HiFAB base on 15 March 2011. The respondent offered the child a place at School C on 7 April 2011 and he was enrolled in the school on 12 May 2011. The child attended the area of the school where the HiFAB base will be for approximately three hours on three days per week from 16 May 2011, where he had contact with one of the specialist teachers at the base and carried out a range of activities. He was not exposed to other pupils.
[5] School A is an independent special school that takes children from age eleven to eighteen years with additional support needs. The school caters for children who have been unable to thrive within mainstream education, for reasons that may include aspergers syndrome, bullying or anxiety. It has an average of forty students, most of whom board during the week. Day places and termly boarding is also available. A Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) report dated 1 March 2011 evaluated improvements in performance, learners’ experiences, meeting learning needs, the curriculum and improvements through evaluation as very good.
[6] On 4 February 2011 a representative of School A wrote to the appellant and confirmed that the school was in a position to offer the child a residential place. The child visited School A on three separate occasions in January and February 2011. One of these visits lasted for three days and involved two overnight stays. He mixed with other pupils and took part in a range of educational provision and activities.
6. Summary of the Parties’ Submissions
RESPONDENT
The respondent’s representative submitted that the respondent had refused the appellant’s placing request on the basis that the duty to comply with the request did not apply as all the conditions in paragraph 3(1)(f) of Schedule 2 of the 2004 Act had been met. It is not disputed that the conditions in paragraph 3(1)(f)(i) and (iv) are met. School A is not a public school and the child has been offered a place at School C. In relation to paragraph 3(1)(f)(ii), the respondent is able to make provision for the child’s additional support needs at School C. The Tribunal heard evidence from Witness A, a senior teacher with a postgraduate qualification in autism who works in the HiFAB base, about how provision could be made for the child’s needs through that base. A range of flexible support is on offer both in terms of the facilities and the large range of experienced teaching and support staff, both within the base and the wider school community. It was submitted that Witness A explained the support structures in place for vulnerable children at School C and the opportunities on offer to enable the child to meet and work with a suitable peer group to further develop his social and academic skills and self-confidence and for inclusion into mainstream education as appropriate. Trained and experienced staff will work with and support the child and challenge his anxieties and fears. Witness A considered this to be a priority for the child. A plan is in place for School C to work flexibly with the child and the appellant as a fully supportive education system, to draw together the child’s responses at home and at school to address any issues he may have.
It was submitted that the Tribunal heard evidence of the work done with the child at School C to date and how he has clearly progressed during his time there, meeting the targets in his Individualised Education Plan and exceeding all expectations. School C is able to provide a safe, nurturing, inclusive and positive environment for the child with small groups and specialised staff, which was recognised as a requirement by the Consultant at CAMHS to enhance and further benefit the child’s overall development both socially and academically. The child could access speech and language therapy and music therapy if required. The child has already met and worked with Witness A, who demonstrated extensive understanding of the child, his ASD, his OCD and his overall needs. The HiFAB base is new to School C, but it is a tried and tested model which successfully meets the needs of children similar to the child. The child’s progress and Individualised Education Plan will be regularly monitored and if it is established that his needs are not being met this would be drawn to the attention of the resource management team.
In relation to paragraph 3(1)(f)(iii), the respondent's representative submitted that it is not reasonable, having regard both to the respective suitability and to the respective cost of the provision for the additional support needs of the child in School C and School A, to place the child in School A. The education usually provided at School A is unsuitable for the child in terms of his ability and aptitude. The bundle of papers and oral evidence indicate that the child is a high achiever and he should be given the appropriate opportunities to reach his full potential academically as well as socially. His Middle Years Information System (MidYIS) scores indicate that he is within the standard deviation range of being a gifted child and that he is performing within the top 5% of Scottish children. He requires an educational setting with a range of educational opportunities that can be delivered at his level with an equivalent peer study group. It was submitted that Witness B did not adequately demonstrate how this could be provided at School A. If the child was placed there he would not develop educationally to his fullest potential. The respondent has concerns about the level of teaching qualifications on offer for the child at School A and the impact on their ability to offer a range of courses at Intermediate 2 and Higher level. Witness B confirmed that no staff at School A have a postgraduate qualification in autism. The table at R57 indicates that only three members hold a postgraduate qualification in additional support needs.
In terms of the child’s social and emotional welfare in the longer term, it was submitted that attending a special school in a rural setting will not equip him to develop the social and communication skills that he will need to transfer into the wider community and this could be detrimental. This would simply mask some of the difficulties the child is currently experiencing until a later stage. A supported educational environment with graded exposure to elements of mainstream education would be offered to the child at School C. It is appropriate to sensitively challenge him and provide him with a better opportunity to overcome his fears and anxieties whilst remaining in his home setting. Evidence from Witness D confirmed that it is the view of CAMHS that his psychological and emotional needs do not require to be supported in a residential school placement.
The respondent’s representative submitted that the cost of a placement at School A is vastly in excess of the cost of placement at School C. Paragraph 70 of chapter 3 of the 2010 Code of Practice indicates that expense may be unreasonable where the cost may be completely out of scale with the benefits to the child or where a suitable alternative is available at a significantly lower cost. The annual cost of placing the child at School A on a residential basis would be approximately £39678 with additional transport costs of approximately £10000. It was submitted that this would be an unreasonable cost to the respondent given that they are able to make provision for the child at School C where the costs would be limited to transport costs between home and school, estimated at £3800 to £5700 per annum. While the cost of placement at School A was not the primary consideration for the respondent in refusing the placing request, the costs would be out of scale with the possible benefit to the child.
In terms of section 19(5) of the 2004 Act the respondent’s representative invited the Tribunal to confirm the decision to refuse the placing request on the basis that a ground in paragraph 3 to Schedule 2 of the 2004 Act exists and that it is in all the circumstances appropriate to do so.
APPELLANT
The appellant’s representative indicated that is no dispute that School A is not a public school, that the child has been offered a place at School C or that the placement at School C would be at a lower cost. She submitted that the key issue for the Tribunal was the suitability of School C to meet the child’s additional support needs and the respective suitability of School A. The appellant also disputes that the respondent is fully able to make provision for the child’s additional support needs at School C. Placement in the HiFAB base at School C is not an assured success and there has not been sufficient evidence to establish its likely success. The appellant saw how happy the child was with other children at School A. Most importantly, the child continues to feel that he would prefer to be at School A. The appellant does not want to appear critical of the help offered so far and is grateful to all those involved but she believes that if the child is placed in School C there will be a substantial delay in him accessing full time education with his peers. The child was enrolled in School C in May 2011 and this demonstrates the appellant’s willingness to accept help offered. Over the last eleven weeks the child has spent thirty-three hours at School C. This is not a true representation of what life would be like for him if he went on to attend School C on a long term basis. The time he spent there has been relatively short and carefully tailored, and contact with mainstream pupils has largely been avoided. The child continues to report feeling anxious to varying degrees on each visit to School C. The appellant feels that he needs time to rebuild his confidence in a place where he does not experience anxiety on a daily basis.
It was submitted that at School A the child will mix with children with a variety of additional support needs and will be part of a small class of children of a similar age. He will be able to benefit from a twenty-four hour curriculum which will provide further support and social experiences once the school day finishes, with flexibility to pursue his own interests and homework as necessary. At present the child has very few local contacts in the community and all but two of his friends live outside the local area. He has managed to maintain these friendships and feels that not living in close proximity is not a barrier to friendship. He has missed a full academic year of full-time education and due to numerous episodes of bullying in his previous schools it is vital that he is placed in an environment where he can thrive. There is insufficient evidence that this will be the case at School C. The comparison proposed between academic achievement at School A and School C is unfair; the comparison should be between School A and the HiFAB base. The child is an intelligent young man but there is no evidence that he cannot achieve his academic potential at School A. The appellant has gone to great lengths to make sure that the child’s voice has been heard and that every account that she has given of his experiences has been true and exact.
The appellant's representative asked the Tribunal to exercise its powers in terms of section 19(4A)(b) of the 2004 Act to overturn the decision of the education authority.
7. Reasons for Decision
INTRODUCTION
The respondent’s representative suggested that the Tribunal’s powers in relation to the reference were contained in section 19(5) of the 2004 Act. The Tribunal considers that as the reference relates to a decision by the respondent to refuse a placing request made under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2 of the 2004 Act, relating to a school which is not a public school but is a special school, and is therefore made under section 18(3)(da), the relevant provisions are in section 19(4A) of the 2004 Act. Section 19(4A) specifies the circumstances in which a Tribunal may confirm or overturn the decision of the education authority to refuse a placing request referred to it in terms of section 18(3)(da) of the 2004 Act.
In terms of section 19(4A)(a) the Tribunal may 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”
In terms of section 19(4A)(b) the Tribunal may overturn the decision and require the education authority to place the child in the school specified in the placing request by such time as the Tribunal may require.
Section 19(4A)(a) creates a two part test, and the Tribunal considered each part in turn.
TEST IN SECTION 19(4A)(a) OF THE 2004 ACT – PART ONE
Firstly, the Tribunal considered whether or not one or more grounds of refusal specified in paragraph 3(1) or (3) of schedule 2 to the 2004 Act exist or exists. The respondent relied on the grounds of refusal in paragraph 3(1)(f). The duty in paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2 to the 2004 Act to meet the fees and other necessary costs of attendance at the school specified in the placing request does not apply if all of the four conditions in paragraph 3(1)(f) apply.
Paragraph 3(1)(f)
The Tribunal concluded that the conditions in paragraph 3(1)(f)(i) to (iv) apply as follows:
- 3(1)(f)(i) the specified school is not a public school
The parties agreed that this condition applies as School A is an independent special school.
- 3(1)(f)(ii) the authority are able to make provision for the additional support needs of the child in a school (whether or not a school under their management) other than the specified school,
Additional support needs:
Section 1(1) of the 2004 Act specifies that “A child or young person has additional support needs for the purposes of this Act where, for whatever reason, the child or young person is, or is likely to be, unable without the provision of additional support to benefit from school education provided or to be provided for the child or young person.” Section 1(2) indicates that “the reference to school education includes, in particular, such education directed to the development of the personality, talents and mental and physical abilities of the child or young person to their fullest potential”. Section 1(3)(a) defines “additional support” as meaning, in relation to a child of school age “provision which is additional to, or otherwise different from, the educational provision made generally for children … of the same age in schools (other than special schools) under the management of the education authority for the area to which the child or young person belongs”.
The child’s additional support needs arise as a result of his ASD with co-morbid anxiety and OCD. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of Witness D that he needed an educational placement where he will feel safe and secure, where people round about him are going to understand him and where he has an opportunity to achieve academically and to develop social skills and skills in interacting with others. The CAMHS identified that he works best in a small group with specialist staff in a positive environment. He needs support from adults who have a level of understanding of and expertise in dealing with his difficulties. He requires support in order to relate to children in the mainstream school and to do so without high levels of anxiety. He requires support to develop skills in initiating and sustaining conversations. He requires support to manage his anxiety and OCD to ensure that this does not inhibit his education.
Can the Respondent Make Provision for these Needs in School C?
The Tribunal was satisfied that the respondent can make provision for the child’s additional support needs in the HiFAB base at School C. This base has been developed to meet the needs of a small number of boys with high functioning autism or ASD who experience varying degrees of difficulty with peer and adult interactions in a mainstream school setting. The provision will be developed to meet the type of additional support needs demonstrated by the child and will be flexible in its response to his particular needs. For example, the aim is to encourage the child’s full potential; not only academically but also socially. It is intended that a supportive, nurturing environment will be provided, and this is important for the child. The Tribunal found the evidence of Witness A in relation to the planned provision to be of great assistance and was satisfied that he is very aware of the child’s additional support needs and how they can be met, including the significance of his anxiety and OCD.
The layout of the base will be autism specific with individual work areas for each child in the form of booths with dividers between them, individual laptops, trays and other equipment specific to each child. Children at the base will have access to the curriculum offered in School C. Subject teaching may be offered in a range of ways, including integration into mainstream classes, depending on the child’s needs and his ability to integrate in this way without unmanageable anxiety. The provision is therefore able to meet the child’s academic needs. A high degree of communication between home and school is proposed. Implementing the proposals for a “circle of friends” involving peers and “buddy system” involving older pupils will be significant as friendships and relationships are important to the child. The Tribunal considers that support in developing social relationships during less-formally structured times of the school day such as morning break and lunchtime will be significant, as will access to a range of other young people.
The appellant was concerned that the other boys attending the base will be in first year and that the child will therefore not have an age equivalent peer group. Evidence was provided in the bundle of papers and by Witness A that the other pupils were up to eighteen months younger than the child and when this is viewed with the plans to have contact with other children of a similar age to the child and older, the Tribunal did not consider that this meant that provision could not be made for the child’s needs. The appellant also indicated that the child has an untypical degree of social warmth for a child with ASD and requires to be among reciprocal peers. While recognising the validity of this concern and the importance of the child being assisted to make relationships with a range of children, the Tribunal considered that plans were in place to facilitate such contact and that the provision at the HiFAB base can meet his needs in this regard.
- 3(1)(f)(iii) it is not reasonable, having regard both to the respective suitability and to the respective cost (including necessary incidental expenses) of the provision for the additional support needs of the child in the specified school and in the school referred to in paragraph (ii), to place the child in the specified school, and
Respective Costs:
The appellant did not challenge the cost estimates put forward by the respondent and the Tribunal therefore accepted the respondent’s estimate that the cost of a five day per week residential placement for the child at School A would be approximately £39,678 per year. Transport costs would also be incurred. The only additional cost to the respondent of placing the child at the HiFAB base at School C would be transport costs between home and school. The cost of transport to School C would be less than the cost of transport to School A. The cost of placing the child at School A is therefore considerably higher than the cost of placing the child at School C.
The respondent referred to the exploration of “unreasonable public expenditure” in paragraph 70 of chapter 3 of the Code of Practice. The Tribunal did not consider that paragraph 70 of chapter 3 of the Code of Practice was relevant to the consideration of respective suitability and respective cost required by paragraph 3(1)(f)(iii). This is, however, relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration of whether or not it is satisfied that in all the circumstances it is appropriate to confirm the decision of the education authority, and will be discussed further below.
Respective suitability:
School A
The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the appellant that the child’s visits to the school had gone very well. The child’s views, as expressed by the child advocate instructed by the Tribunal, confirmed this. The Tribunal accepted that School A provides a nurturing learning environment in small classes with an average of four children and that the caring atmosphere helps to foster relationships and build self confidence. The school takes an individual approach to each pupil and staff there have experience in engaging with children on the Autistic spectrum. The child would be able to interact with other children during class time and in the evening. Witness B indicated that the school recognises the need to prepare students to cope in larger groups and less predictable situations.
The HMIE report of 1 March 2011 indicated that staff were making very good progress in implementing Curriculum for Excellence and that over the past few years standards of attainment had improved steadily. The report indicated that a few young people had achieved at Higher level. However, it was apparent from the evidence of Witness B and paper in the bundle detailing educational attainment that in some recent years no Scottish Qualifications Certificate (SQC) Higher grade examinations had been sat. For example, in 2008/2009 no child sat a Higher and in 2009/2010 one child sat a Higher. In her oral evidence, Witness B confirmed that no child had gone on to higher education from School A, either directly or following completion of further education. The Tribunal accepted her evidence that the school focused on the interests and needs of each child and made provision accordingly, but was not satisfied that School A would be able to meet the child’s academic needs and give him a choice of a range of subjects or the opportunity to sit several qualifications at the level he is likely to reach. The child’s MidYS scores suggest that he has the academic potential to sit five Highers and go on to University if he chooses to do so.
The child will not have the same access to a range of peers in School A as he may have in School C, both in terms of the needs of his peers and their academic ability. The results for 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 suggest that he may not have peers with the same academic ability and this would significantly impact on his ability to share learning and develop his knowledge, understanding and analytical skills collaboratively in subjects such as English and Drama which are of particular interest to him.
School C
The Tribunal’s views on the ability of the HiFAB base at School C to make provision for the child’s additional support needs are outlined above. The Tribunal considers that the HiFAB base can meet the child’s additional support needs and his academic needs, and that this provision is suitable for him.
The child made significant progress in addressing his anxiety and OCD when at the CAHMS day service. He has also made significant progress since he began attending School C on a part-time basis, far exceeding the targets in his Individualised Education Plan, although it is accepted that he has attended for short periods and has not had regular contact with other pupils. The Tribunal was very impressed with how hard he has tried to overcome his difficulties. The progress he has made has been supported by the appellant, who has facilitated his attendance at School C despite it not being her preferred option. Witness A gave evidence outlining the steps that will be taken to ensure that staff in School C are aware of the child’s needs and the steps that will be taken to meet his needs. This includes taking into account his anxieties. The Tribunal noted the significant contrast between the child’s transfer from School Bto School D and the plans in place for his transfer to the HiFAB base. No steps were taken to address his needs when he transferred to School D. No additional support was in place and staff were not aware that he had additional support needs.
Witness A gave evidence that it appeared that even when anxiety was not apparent at school issues could come out at home and he considered that work may be required to join the worlds of home and school together and help the child to transfer skills learned in one environment to the other. The Tribunal considered that weekly boarding may not be the best way to address these issues. The proximity of School C to the child’s home is likely to be a positive factor in promoting the potential to develop such transferrable skills. Witness A demonstrated commitment to such work and to working with the appellant in this regard. Although the appellant does not believe that School C is the best option for the child she demonstrated a very considered and measured approach when she gave evidence at the Tribunal and the Tribunal is in no doubt that she will take all the steps she can to co-operate with professionals in the best interests of the child, as she has done to date.
Conclusion:
Paragraph 3(1)(f)(iii) requires the Tribunal to have regard to the respective suitability and respective costs of School C and School A in order to determine if the authority are correct in their contention that it is “not reasonable” to place the child in School A. The Tribunal concluded it is not reasonable to place the child in School A as the provision at School C is more suitable for the child than placement at School A and the cost of placement at School C is considerably less than the cost of placement at School A.
- 3(1)(f)(iv) the authority have offered to place the child in the school referred to in paragraph (ii)
The parties agreed that the respondent has offered to place the child in School C.
TEST IN SECTION 19(4A)(a) OF THE 2004 ACT – PART TWO
Having concluded that the grounds for refusal in paragraph 3(1)(f) of Schedule 2 to the 2004 Act apply in relation to School C, the Tribunal went on to consider the second part of the test in section 19(4A) of the 2004 Act; whether or not it was satisfied that in all the circumstances it is appropriate to confirm the decision of the education authority.
In considering this test the Tribunal took into account that section 28(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 provides that “In the exercise and performance of their powers and duties under this Act … education authorities shall have general regard to the principle that, so far as is compatible with the provision of suitable instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents”. The Tribunal considered that placement at School A in accordance with the wishes of the appellant would involve unreasonable and unnecessary public expenditure. Section 19(7) of the 2004 Act provides that in exercising its powers under section 19 a Tribunal must take account, so far as relevant, of any code of practice published by the Scottish Ministers under section 27(1). The respondent submitted that taking into account paragraph 70 of chapter 3 of the 2010 Code of Practice the expense of placing the child in School A would be unreasonable as the cost would be completely out of scale with the benefits to the child and where a suitable alternative is available at a significantly lower cost. The Tribunal agrees with these submissions and accordingly considers that it is appropriate to confirm the decision of the respondent despite the fact that the appellant wishes the child to be educated at School A.
The Tribunal also considered the duty on the respondent in terms of section 15 of the Standards in
Finally, the Tribunal considered the views of the child. The most recent account of his views was that provided by a child advocate who contacted the child at the request of the Convener. He reports that the child was very enthusiastic about School A, that when he visited the school he felt immediately welcomed, liked the classes and other activities, and felt the other pupils were warm and friendly. He felt at ease and like “one of a family”. His main concerns about School C were about the fear, anxiety and nervousness he felt, especially in relation to “mainstream” pupils. He believes that School A is the best option for him, that he would feel happier and more secure there and that he would achieve more academically and be more fulfilled socially. He does not think that School C is right for him. The views expressed by the child to the child advocate are very much in line with the views provided to and by the appellant, and the Tribunal was impressed with the steps the appellant had taken to ensure that the child’s views were accurately reflected and taken into account by the range of professionals working with him. The Tribunal understands that the child felt comfortable at School A and that he enjoyed his time there and felt part of the school in a short time. The Tribunal took these views into account in reaching a decision, but even though he wants to go to School A the Tribunal still concluded that it is reasonable for it to confirm the decision of the respondent to refuse the placing request.
Prior to a meeting at CAMHS on 18 January 2011 the child expressed views in writing, including “My hopes are to:- make friends, feel accepted, enjoy activities such as table tennis and drama, feel understood”. The Tribunal considers that although attendance at School C may be more challenging to begin with, the provision at the HiFAB base will offer him the opportunity to realise these hopes. Evidence from several sources suggested that friendships and relationships are important to him. He was described as a “delight” and “a joy to work with”. There are several aspects of the provision at School C that will meet his needs well, as outlined above. The child provided a list of things that make him anxious to a meeting at CAMHS that took place on 1 February 2011. These included OCD thoughts that “things are dirty”, crowds, new places, new people, children and young people (worse with teenagers) and fears about being bullied based on previous experiences. His view of bullying included frequent jostling in corridors, people saying “mean” things to him, people making him feel “bad to be different” and “shunning him”. In a book the child prepared at School C, with support, in June 2011, it says he “can’t stand it when … people are malevolent or disrespectful to others or myself … when I’m in busy places such as corridors … I have to meet or be around groups of young people that I don’t know”. The Tribunal was satisfied that staff at the HiFAB base are aware of these issues and will deal with them sensitively.
In all the circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is appropriate to confirm the decision of the education authority.
CONCLUSION
As the Tribunal is satisfied that the ground of refusal specified in paragraph 3(1)(f) of Schedule 2 of the 2004 Act exists and that in all the circumstances it is appropriate to confirm the decision, the Tribunal confirms the decision of the respondents to refuse the placing request.
