DE
Reference: D_08_ 2011
Gender: Female
Aged:
Type of Reference: Placing Request
1. Reference
This reference was to decide a placing request made by the Appellant (The young person) to College A
2. Decision of the Tribunal
To refuse the placing request, for the reasons set out below.
3. Preliminary Issues
On behalf of the Education Authority, their Solicitor indicated to the Tribunal that she wished to make a preliminary argument. This was to be to the effect that the placing requesting sought was not competent as it was a “post-school placement”. The education authority were permitted to advance this argument.
Solicitor referred us to R35 which was a copy of the letter making the placing request. She indicated that the authority had been ordered to respond to that letter by direction of the convener. There had been a delay in issuing the response and the authority regretted that. Following the direction issued the authority did issue a refusal of the placing request and that was within the papers at T24. She directed the Tribunal to paragraph 2 of the Grounds for Refusal which stated “the placement requested is considered a post-school placement in a college and therefore is not one that would allow The young person to continue her school education. It is not therefore competent for The Respondent Education Service to agree this placing request”. Solicitor stressed this was not about saying that The young person could not attend the college but simply about saying a placing request was not the way to go about it. She indicated that adult services had offered to be involved with The young person but that the family did not want to go down that route.
The appeal to the Tribunal had been made by The young person herself who had the right to do that. However, such placing requests were governed by Schedule 2 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 but that Schedule did not define the word “school”. To see that definition one had to refer to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and Section 135 thereof which defined “school” as “an institution for the provision of primary or secondary education or both primary and secondary education … etc.)” She also drew our attention to the definition of “special school”.
Solicitor’s submission thereafter was that in terms of that wording College A was not a “school”. She referred us to the prospectus which had been lodged and which made it clear that College A was an institution for the provision of further education for 16-25 year olds and used the word “college” about itself. She directed us to page A117 which pointed out that The young person had been assessed as being suitable to attend the institution using the adult core curriculum. She referred us to Page A167 which referred to the institution as a further education college.
Solicitor submitted that weight was added to her submission by the type of course that The young person would undertake at College A. In particular, she said that the B-Tech Course, which the young person had been offered admission to, was not offered through the Scottish Qualifications Authority but was offered in Scotland through further education colleges. In conclusion she indicated that therefore The young person’s request could not be a valid placing request and that if she remained interested in attending College A she would require to access that through adult services. The council submitted that the placing request was not a competent one for the Tribunal to consider. Under questioning from the Tribunal the authority accepted that The young person was still in school education at present.
For the Appellant it was submitted that the title of the institution, being “College A” was off-putting. Whilst the word “college” was used, this was not a further education college as such. The course being offered to The young person was equivalent to GCSE’s and that was referred to in the papers and made clear in the papers. The submission was that as the young person would be offered a course equivalent to a GCSE at College A and as GCSEs would normally be studied at school, it should come under the definition of “school”, rather than as being seen as further education. It was stated that the Tribunal could not get away from the fact that the young person would be doing a course equivalent to secondary education at College A.
Solicitor was then asked by the Convener whether she thought College A could come under the definition of “secondary education” as defined by Section 135(2)(b)(ii) of the 1980 Act. However, her submission was that it could not as one could not get away from the fact that College A would have to be viewed as a “school” to meet this definition.
The Tribunal adjourned in order to consider this preliminary matter and then issued a verbal decision.
It was the view of the Tribunal that Schedule 2 of the 2004 Act deals with placing requests before the Tribunal and refers to requests to places in “school”. One cannot make a placing request under the Act to a further education college. The definition of “school” in the 1980 Act was observed and considered by the tribunal, as was the definition of “secondary education”.
The Tribunal were of the view that, fundamentally, the Act was intended to provide for the placing of children in institutions which normally provide for the education of secondary school pupils of aged 11 to 16 or 18, that being the ages during which children carry out their “secondary education”. College A, designed as it is to deal with young people 16-25 is a further education provision as we would understand it and that is not altered by the fact that the types of course on offer there can be seen as equivalent to GCSEs. The Tribunal would observe that one can study standard grades at various further education colleges but that fact does not make them “schools” as we would commonly understand them. As such, it was a view of the Tribunal that College A was not a “school” within the meaning of the Act and thus the preliminary point made by the education authority was upheld and the placing request refused.
Parties were advised that the Appellant could submit further written submissions on the legal definition of “school” within seven days if she wished to do so, in the interests of fairness. Such submissions have now been received and considered.
In the opinion of the Tribunal the only new argument raised by the Appellant in those submissions is the argument that The young person’s additional support needs are met within College A in the manner anticipated by s135 (2)(b)(ii) of the 1980 Act and thus College A would constitute “secondary education” for The young person. In the view of the Tribunal the trouble with this argument is that s135 refers back to “school education” and thus, in the view of the Tribunal requires to be taking place within a school. For the reasons given above we are not able to hold that College A is a school and thus consider the argument on behalf of the Appellant must fail.
4. Summary of Evidence:
Not applicable.
5. Findings in Fact:
Not applicable
.
6. Reasons for Decision
See above.
